Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Lyme Regis District Water Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

The Maidens and Coombe Urban District Council [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Private Bills (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Kingston upon Hull Corporation.

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Bath and Bury and District Joint Water Board) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Dewsbury and Ossett Passenger Transport Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT (OFFICER'S ARREST).

Major MILNER: 1.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the date on which Lieutenant Baillie-Stewart was arrested and the date on which he was furnished with formal particulars of the charges on which he was eventually tried?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): This officer was placed in arrest on 20th January. He was aware on that date of the substance of the charge which was to be brought against him. On 24th January he was formally charged with committing an offence under the Official Secrets Acts. On 13th February he was furnished with a preliminary charge sheet, and on the 15th February with a complete charge sheet.

Major MILNER: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that they do these things rather more expeditiously in Russia, and will he see to it that the matter is remedied in future proceedings in this country?

Mr. COOPER: I do not see how it could have been done more expeditiously. The officer was aware, before he was arrested, of the charge against him, and I think that it is the opposite from what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has suggested.

Major MILNER: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that formal particulars were not supplied until almost a month after his arrest?

Mr. COOPER: The officer was well aware of them and made no complaint on that score.

Mr. McENTEE: Will the hon. Gentleman say what time elapsed between the period when the officer was subjected to four hours' cross-examination and the time when he was actually supplied with particulars of the charges against him?

Mr. COOPER: Particulars of charges against him were, as I said, supplied on a certain date, as I have already stated in my official answer. As to the particular cross-examination to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, he must give me the date of it in order that I may compare it.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that not only was the officer charged but he was also provided with counsel by the War Office?

Mr. COOPER: That is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

RATING SYSTEM.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to ascertain the wishes of Scottish ratepayers as regards the different systems of rating in Scotland and in England?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The question of the rating system excites considerable interest and discussion, and I anticipate that the report of a committee of the Scottish National Development Council which is now being framed will contain valuable information on the subject. I realise the importance of the issues involved and await with interest the above-mentioned report.

TOURIST TRAFFIC (DEVELOPMENT).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the importance of the tourist industry to Scotland, he will call the at-
tention of the different local authorities to the fact that none of them, up to the present, have taken advantage of the power conferred upon them to levy a halfpenny rate for the purpose of advertising their attractions?

Sir G. COLLINS: Town councils are empowered to contribute annually a sum not exceeding in all the produce of a halfpenny rate to organisations approved under the Local Authorities (Publicity) Act, 1931. The Scottish Travel Association was so approved in 1931, and the approval was intimated to all town councils. I understand that a number of local authorities have made contributions for this purpose, and I should be glad to see a more general use of their powers for the purpose of developing the Scottish tourist traffic to the fullest extent.

HOUSING.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, to encourage the building of houses by private enterprise, he will consider recommending to local authorities in Scotland increased co-operation with building societies, especially as A result of the Government guarantee'?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): It is my right hon. Friend's intention to issue a circular to local authorities in Scotland containing recommendations on the lines suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend if and when the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill becomes law. I may add that my right hon. Friend is anxious to give the very widest publicity to the provisions to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and is considering what means beyond such a circular will best effect this object.

Mr. KIRKWOOD (for Mr. NEIL MACLEAN): 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of houses at 31st March, 1933, or nearest possible date, which have been completed since 1919 under the various State-assisted schemes by local authorities and by private enterprise, respectively; the total number of houses completed in the same period by unassisted private enterprise; and the number of local authorities houses which have been provided under slum-clearance schemes?

Mr. SKELTON: As the answer is long and involves a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

During the period from 1919 to the 28th February, 1933, the latest date for which information is available, 111,336 houses were completed under State-assisted schemes by local authorities in Scotland and 31,897 by private enterprise. In addition 2,552 steel houses were completed in that period by the Second Scottish National Housing Company. The number of houses completed by unassisted private enterprise between 1919 and the 31st December, 1932, the latest date for which information is available, is 20,904. As regards the last part of the question, 20,356 of the local authority houses already mentioned were provided with State assistance under the provisions of Sub-section 3 of Section 1 of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, and under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, for the replacement of unfit houses.

DUMBARTON (EXCHEQUER GRANTS).

Commander COCHRANE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount of grant payable to the County Council of Dumbarton for the second fixed grant period under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929?

Mr. SKELTON: The estimated amount of grant payable to the County Council of Dumbarton for the second fixed grant period is £76,829, which comprises the General Exchequer grant, the Landward Exchequer grant, the grant payable to Special Districts and Water Boards, and the supplementary grant.

LAND SETTLEMENT.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the approximate average cost of settling smallholders in the Highlands and Lowlands, respectively; and how these costs compare with the corresponding costs in 1929?

Sir G. COLLINS: As indicated by the Departmental Committee on Land Settlement in Scotland which reported in 1928, a close estimate of the cost of land settlement can only be obtained as the result of an actuarial valuation. In the circumstances it would be misleading to attempt a comparison of costs such as my hon.
Friend desires; but if he would care to examine such figures as I have obtained, I shall be pleased to let him see them.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR - WEDDERBURN: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a smallholder is invariably required to provide the whole of the capital necessary for his establishment or whether the Department can provide loans for this purpose to suitable applicants?

Sir G. COLLINS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The holder usually provides the capital for stocking and working the holding, and the Department of Agriculture the capital for land and permanent equipment necessary for the establishment of the holder.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MITCHELL MAIN COLLIERY, WOMBWELL.

Mr. SMITHERS: 9.
asked the Secretary for Mines the reason for the dismissal of 1,500 miners at the Mitchell Main Colliery, Wombwell; and if he will inquire into the general position of this colliery and particularly with regard to its quota allocation?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have seen representatives of the management, of the workmen and of the Wombwell Urban District Council. The colliery company owns two pits, Mitchell Main and Darfield Main. I am informed that the company proposes, in the future, to produce the whole of its permitted output from Dar-field Main as being a more economic unit than Mitchell Main. On 22nd March, 1933, an independent arbitrator declined to grant any increased standard tonnage to the company in respect of these two pits. His award left one point to the decision of the courts, but the colliery company inform me that even if they were successful on this point and were granted the increase the arbitrator indicated should be given in those circumstances, they would not be prepared to reopen the colliery.

Mr. SMITHERS: Does the Department realise that the quota system is restricting the business of the coal industry, and is generally helping to kill the trade of this country?

Mr. BROWN: The answer to that question is that the Department is not likely to realise it, seeing that, with all its disadvantages, the majority of those connected with the trade, both on the owners' side and on the men's side, take an entirely different point of view.

Mr. GRUNDY: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that the Mitchell Main Colliery have no intention of having their quota supplied by Darfield Colliery; secondly, is he aware that the urban council of Wombwell trust to their supply for gas to the Mitchell Main Colliery; and, thirdly, is he aware that a local glass works employing several hundred men will have to shut down in the event of this colliery being stopped?

Mr. BROWN: I am aware of those things. I am also aware that the particular termination of the gas contract will cause a good deal of difficulty in Wombwell; but the colliery, as the House will understand, has carried on for over two years under the quota system and has even been able to sell quota. Since 1st January, 1931, the undertaking, on balance, has sold nearly 20,000 tons of quota, so that the House will realise that there is a very great gulf between propaganda and truth.

Mr. HIRST: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, when they sold part of their quota amounting to 7,000 tons in 1931 and 1932, it was due to the fact that the seam had run out; and seeing that they had to drive two pairs of drifts down to get at the Silkstone seam, is not that a developing colliery which ought to have the quota altered from what it is at the present time? Is he aware that they sold 7,000 tons of their quota, and had to buy 8,000 tons?

Mr. BROWN: I am aware of those facts, and I am also aware of the fact that, when there was a dispute as recently as last August at Darfield Main, the owner himself admitted that up to that time he had no quota difficulties about which to complain. The complaint was of a dispute about the proportion of dirt in the total output.

Mr. GRUNDY: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that the Mitchell Main quota has been reduced by 20 per cent. while the area production has been reduced only by 13 per cent.? Is he aware that that is a fact too?

Mr. BROWN: I would advise the hon. Member to quote those figures with reserve.

Mr. GRUNDY: I quote them absolutely confidently; there is no reserve about them.

Mr. PIKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the quota system in Yorkshire has been successful?

EXPLOSION, ASIITON-IN-MAKERFIELD.

Mr. TINKER: 10.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can give an approximate date when the report of the Chief Inspector of Mines will be issued on the inquiry made on the explosion at Edge Green Collieries, Ashton-in-Makerfield, near Wigan, which occurred on 12th November, 1932?

Mr. E. BROWN: The report is in the press and I anticipate that it will be published before the end of the month.

COAL-CUTTING MACHINES AND CONVEYORS.

Mr. COCKS: 11.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal-cutters and conveyors, respectively, in British pits in 1913 and 1932 and the percentage of coal cut by mechanical means in each of these years?

Mr. E. BROWN: In 1932, 3,265 face-conveyors and 7,137 coal-cutters were in use at mines in Great Britain and 38 per cent. of the total output was cut by machine. The corresponding figures for 1913 were 359, 2,895 and 8, respectively. In addition 855 conveyors were in use elsewhere below ground in 1932 but similar information is not available for 1913.

Mr. COCKS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the matter is being examined by the Government to find out the number of miners thrown out of work by the increasing mechanisation of the coal industry?

Mr. BROWN: The Government are engaged in making very great efforts to increase the exports of coal to Scandinavian countries by way of negotiations which are now approaching a conclusion.

Mr. SMITHERS: Would not the best way to achieve that object be to do away with the quota system altogether?

Mr. BROWN: No, Sir.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the negotiations with foreign countries to which he referred are making any progress; and will he be good enough to answer the question as to whether there is any evidence in the Department of any increase in the number of accidents consequent upon the introduction of coal-cutting machines?

Mr. BROWN: I should like to see that particular question on the Paper. As regards the first part of the question, I do not think that the House will have to wait long.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND (EXCHANGE RATES).

Mr. LAMBERT: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will make representations to Australia and New Zealand that their currencies, depreciated by 25 per cent. in relation to sterling, constitute unfair competition with the home producers of agricultural products?

Mr. LINDSAY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if his attention has been called to the adverse effect upon British exports to New Zealand of the increased rate of exchange recently imposed by the Government of that Dominion; and what action he proposes to take in this matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The question of the exchange rates in Australia and New Zealand is not one in which representations could appropriately be made by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Mr. LAMBERT: Are we to understand that under the Ottawa Agreement the home agricultural producers were to have the first call on the home market? Therefore, is it not true that this deliberate depreciation of currency is a breach of that understanding?

Mr. THOMAS: I do not think it is a deliberate act. In regard to home agriculture, I hope that it will still have the first call on the home market.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Was not this depreciation of exchange taken against the
advice of the Government, and is not the effect of it to wipe out all the advantage of the preference given to British goods?

Mr. THOMAS: New Zealand is a Dominion, and it is not for me to ascertain the means by which the Government arrived at their decision, or whether what has been done has been according to the view of the Government or not.

Sir P. HARRIS: Is there not a treaty between this Government and the New Zealand Government?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, but this is not a violation of it.

Mr. McGOVERN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this currency difficulty will make his proposed visit to Australia cheaper or dearer?

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.

Mr. McENTEE: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that in relation to a report of the general purposes committee to the London County Council on 6th December, 1932, the Empire Marketing Board, on 14th March, 1933, wrote officially to the council congratulating them on their Imperial Preference policy; and whether the action of the Empire Marketing Board in issuing an official communication commenting on matters which are the subject of political controversy on the London County Council received its approval?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am aware of the letter in question, which was sent by express direction of the Empire Marketing Board. It was designed to acknowledge the notable lead given by the London County Council over a long period in encouraging the use, wherever reasonably possible, of materials of British manufacture or Empire production.

Mr. McENTEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a good deal of feeling has been caused in the country in consequence of this letter, and is he aware that many local authorities who are granting special facilities to the Empire Marketing Board for advertising will not continue to do so if the Board continue to show this party bias?

Mr. THOMAS: I hope there will be no such construction of their action. The
Empire Marketing Board is a non-party Board. They encourage, first, home produce, and then Empire produce. They wrote to a number of borough and county councils urging them to give effect to that policy, and the London County Council gave a notable lead. Surely, the Empire Marketing Board is entitled to place on record their appreciation of those services. That is all that was done. So far from any feeling being shown, I think it was quite the reverse.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is only the prehistoric section of the Socialist party who make these objections?

CONTINENTAL STEEL CARTEL.

Mr. HANNON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make a statement on the progress of the negotiations for the renewal of the Continental steel cartel; and if a basic period for the new quotas has yet been determined and any arrangements made relating to a fixation of prices calculated to compete with the steel production in this country?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I understand that an agreement in regard to the setting up of selling syndicates for various steel products has now been reached by the Continental groups concerned, and that the quota percentages have been determined. I have no information as to the basis upon which prices will be fixed.

Mr. HANNON: Will my right hon. Friend watch carefully the development of these cartel arrangements, this new orientation of steel interests in Europe, and the effect from time to time on our own steel industry?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We shall watch very carefully this very important movement.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of the amount of English capital that is invested in these Continental cartels?

IMPORTED CARPETS.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: 17.
asked the President of the Board of
Trade what proportion of the carpets imported into this country and retained here have a declared value of £1 per yard or over; and what the yardage of this proportion is?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that the desired information is not available.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: As the right hon. Gentleman cannot give me the figures, is he aware of the fact that there are very large imports of carpets from £1 to 22s. declared value and, further, that on all these carpets the recent duty imposed of 4s. 6d. a square yard is actually less protection to the manufacturers of this country than existed before the change was made?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that I cannot argue that out with my hon. Friend, because the information on which it is based is not available.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the information become available in the right hon. Gentleman's Department sooner or later, or are we to remain in ignorance?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It will not be sooner, but I do not know what may happen later.

Mr. MAXTON: Has not the right hon. Gentleman some measure of control over what will happen, either sooner or later?

EMPIRE IMPORTS (SEA TRANSPORT).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information to show what percentage of the imports into this country from Empire sources were carried in British or Empire-owned ships during 1931 and 1932, respectively; and whether any steps have been taken to increase this percentage during the current year?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on the 7th March to the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Rankin).

NEW UNDERTAKINGS.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the latest figures available as to the number of new industrial undertakings, both British and foreign, which have been
established in this country since the passage of the Import Duties Act?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies which I gave on the 28th March to the hon. Member for Hemswurth (Mr. Price) and on the 30th March to the hon. Member for Deritend (Mr. Smedley Crooke), copies of which I am sending to him.

Captain MACDONALD: Have there been any later figures?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid not.

EMPIRE TRADE.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 20 and 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what percentage of the imports into the Britislh Dominions, other than the Irish Free State, were drawn from

Statement showing for the year 1913 and the latest year for which particulars are available, the proportion of the aggregate trade of (1) the self-governing Dominions, other than the Irish Free State, and (2) the Crown Colonies and Protectorates, represented by trade with the United Kingdom.


Year.
Canada, Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, Union of South Africa and Newfoundland.
Crown Colonies and Protectorates (excluding Mandated Territories) (a).


Imports from U.K. as proportion of total imports.
Exports (Domestic Produce) to U.K. as proportion of exports to all countries.
Imports from U.K. as proportion of total imports.
Exports (Domestic Produce) to U.K as proportion of exports to all countries. (b)




Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.


1913
…
39.0
55.2
31.5
36.3


1931
…
—
—
26.1
29.1


1932 (c)
…
29.8
55.8
(d)
(d)


(a) Southern Rhodesia is included in this group of countries.


(b) British Malaya records total exports only, and exports of domestic produce have been estimated in compiling these percentages.


(c) Based on provisional figures.


(d) Not vet available.


Note.—For 1932 the figures included above relate to the year ended 30th June in the case of Australia and Newfoundland. For 1913 the figures for Canada relate to the year ended 31st March, 1914, and those for Newfoundland to the year ended 30th June, 1913.

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any new trade agreements have been negotiated and completed between this country and Denmark, Sweden, Holland, and any of the South American republics; and, if so, will he state the terms of such agreements?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope to be able to make a statement very shortly regarding

the United Kingdom; and what percentage of the exports of those Dominions went to the United Kingdom in 1932 or in the latest year for which the figures are available and, for comparison, the figures for the previous year and for 1913;

(2) what percentage of the imports into the Crown Colonies and Protectorates, excluding mandated territories, were drawn from the United Kingdom; and what percentage of the exports of those Crown Colonies and Protectorates went to the United Kingdom in 1932 or in the latest year for which the figures are available and, for comparison, the figures for the previous year and for 1913?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer involves a tabular statement I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

the progress of negotiations with certain countries.

RUSSIA.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the value of Russian imports into this country in the last six months; and the value of British exports to Russia in the same period?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Particulars for March are not yet available, but in the
five months ended February the declared value of the imports of merchandise into the United Kingdom consigned from the Soviet Union was £8,600,000. During the same period exports to the Soviet Union of the produce and manufactures of this country were valued at £2,910,000, and exports of imported merchandise at £400,000.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the £8,600,000 worth of articles imported from Russia to this country were manufactured?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say, without notice.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion were bought by co-operative societies?

Sir G. FOX: 28.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the amount of export credits guarantees now valid in connection with the Russian trade of Metro-Vickers, Limited?

Mr. E. BROWN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry) on the 28th March, of which I am sending him a copy.

JAPANESE TRADE MISSIONS.

Mr. HANNON: 27.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if his attention has been called to the decision of the Japanese Export Association to send trade missions to South America, the South Seas, India, East and West Africa, the Near East, and Egypt, with samples of cotton and wool textiles, handkerchiefs, knitted goods, celluloid manufactures, buttons, cycles and cycle parts, and similar articles; and whether, seeing that the Japanese Government have made a grant of 100,000 yen for the purpose of this association, which proposes to establish a special organisation in the Near East for extending the sale of cotton goods, he will say what action His Majesty's Government proposes to take to meet this attack upon the interests of British trade?

Mr. E. BROWN: Taking seriatim the points raised in the question, my information is as follows: The Japanese Export Association has not yet finally reached a decision to send a trade mission to the countries named. The association has not
yet approached the Japanese Government for financial assistance. The establishment of a special organisation in the Near East does not appear to be connected with the other proposal. Up to the present it has made no headway. The answer to the last part of the question does not at present arise, but the whole question of Japanese competition is now under consideration.

Mr. HANNON: Will my hon. Friend or will the President of the Board of Trade watch carefully the developments in the Near East and the Far East and see that our manufacturers are properly advised as to the effect of this competition?

Mr. BROWN: Certainly, and the House will be glad that my hon. Friend's eagle eye is also on the matter.

IMPORT DUTIES (SPORTS TROPHIES).

Mrs. TATE: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider classifying cups and trophies won as prizes in competitive sports in foreign countries under one heading for the purpose of import duties; and if he will instruct customs officers at the ports not to charge duty on these articles?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): As regards the first part of the question I am afraid that such a classification would not be suitable. As regards the second part there is no power under the existing law to waive the appropriate customs duty chargeable on the cups and trophies referred to, and therefore I am not in a position to issue such an instruction as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mrs. TATE: In view of the fact that British subjects who win trophies in international contests render very real service to British industry, would it not be passible to consider amending the law with regard to these trophies?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have explained -that that would probably involve a change in the law. From the customs point of view a trophy is what it is made of, and it is very difficult to discover a suitable alternative definition.

HON. MEMBERS: Why?

Mr. PERKINS: Do I understand that if in the next vacation I go flying abroad
in order to advertise British aircraft, and I come back with a trophy, I shall have to pay duty on it?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I hope my hon. Friend will carry out his threat.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA).

Lord APSLEY: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has yet considered the findings of the Commission which investigated the allegations of the British settlers in the state of Victoria, Australia; and what action it is proposed to take in this matter?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have not yet received a copy of the Commission's report, and therefore, as I stated in the House on the 4th April, I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.

Lord APSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement fairly soon?

Mr. THOMAS: I understand that I am likely to receive a report in May.

Mr. MAXTON: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will be taking some action in the matter?

Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend may understand that I will read the report.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUBBER INDUSTRY BILL.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Research Association of British Rubber Manufacturers have discharged many of their staff and suspended their research work for lack of funds; and whether, in these circumstances, facilities will be given for further progress of the Rubber Industry Bill?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the facts stated by my hon. Friend. The Government recognise that it is desirable that the work of this association should continue and have decided to give an opportunity for further discussion in Parliament of the Rubber Industry Bill. In the present state of business in this House, it is proposed to introduce the Bill at an early date in another place.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONVENTION FOR THE SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA.

Lord APSLEY: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the United States has yet ratified the new Safety of Life Convention; and how many countries have not ratified it?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, seven Signatory Countries—Australia, India, Irish Free State, Belgium, Japan, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—have not yet ratified the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea.

Lord APSLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether those countries that have ratified the convention are taking any action such as raising of pilotage dues against ships coming from those countries that have not yet ratified?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Notice will have to be given of any question as regards pilotage dues.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

Mr. STOURTON: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the recent bankruptcy of Moszek Nachmar Wolfowiez, alias Morris Wolfe; and whether, in view of the representations made by the registrar of Birkenhead, he intends to issue an order for deportation against him?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The attention of my right hon. Friend had not previously been drawn to this case, but he is making inquiries and will consider it.

Mr. STOURTON: Is the right hon. Member aware that the percentage of foreign bankrupts and bankruptcies of men of foreign extraction is very high, and will he, therefore, undertake to conduct a general inquiry into this important matter?

Mr. HACKING: The right hon. Member asked a specific question on a specific case, and I replied to it. He is now asking a question in general terms for which, I must ask for notice.

Mr. GLOSSOP: Is the hon. Member not aware that a large percentage of the bankruptcies of aliens in this country certainly point to misconduct rather than to misfortune?

Mr. DORAN: 30.
asked the Home Secretary what restrictions exist to prevent persons at the ports in this country supplying incoming Jewish aliens with money to satisfy the requirements of the Aliens Office, and so to obtain admission to this country?

Mr. HACKING: For persons at the ports in this country to supply an incoming alien with money before he is interviewed by the immigration officer would be difficult, and in any case would be ineffective. While the Aliens Order expressly debars an alien from admission if he is not in a position to support himself and his dependants, ability to comply with this condition does not necessarily ensure admission. Other considerations are taken into account before leave is given to an alien to land.

Mr. DORAN: Is the right hon. Member aware that the invasion of undesirable aliens is causing great resentment and anxiety in this country and cannot he see his way to give them notice to quit before serious trouble develops?

Mr. McGOVERN: May I ask whether the hon. Member is here as the Hitler agent in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCK, LATCH AND KEY INDUSTRY (WAGES AGREEMENT).

Mr. MANDER: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that the agreement for wages arrived at through the joint industrial council of the lock, latch and key industry is being observed in all cases?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I have no reason to think that the agreements made between the employers' and workers' organisations comprising this joint industrial council are not being generally observed by the parties concerned.

Mr. MANDER: If I can bring to his attention certain cases will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to take such action as he can?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. There is no action that I can take. This is a purely voluntary organisation over which I have no control.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Mr. MANDER: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is the practice in respect of each of the public assistance committees under the Staffordshire County Council to vary allowances under transitional payments in accordance with variation in rent?

Sir H. BETTERTON: This is a matter within the discretion of the authority and details of the practice of the various committees are not in my possession.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 42.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give the names of those county and county borough councils which are exercising their powers under Section 2 of the Transitional Payments (Determination of Need) Act, 1932, stating in each case which rules are being observed?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The adoption of the rules set out in Sub-section 2 of Section 1 of the Transitional Payments (Determination of Need) Act, 1932, does not require my right hon. Friend's sanction and need not be reported to him, but he is sending the hon. Member a statement setting out the information on the subject which is available in the Department.

CARPET INDUSTRY.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour what number of persons were normally employed in the carpet trade in this country at the last convenient date; and how many, respectively, were unemployed in February, 1931, December, 1932, and March, 1933?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The estimated number of insured persons in the carpet industry classification in Great Britain at the beginning of July, 1932, was 27,360. The numbers of insured persons recorded as unemployed were 7,834 at 23rd February, 1931, 2,263 at 19th December, 1932, and 3,179 at 20th March, 1933.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Do not these figures show clearly that the form of protection given to the industry is causing unemployment; and is not that an argument for increasing the protection to the figure desired by the industry?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Do not these figures clearly indicate that there are fewer people in this country who are buying carpets than before?

WORK SCHEMES.

Mr. MANDER: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has considered the resolution from the Wednesfield Urban District Council that the Government should again make grants from the Exchequer to local authorities towards the cost of approved works for the purpose of giving employment to unemployed persons, and that legislation should be introduced to provide that where as a result of works executed at the cost of public funds owners of land receive benefit by way of an increase in the value of their lands some proportion of such increase in value should become payable to the authority who financed the works; and if he will state whether the Government are prepared to accede in part or in whole to the proposals made?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have received the resolution referred to. For reasons which have been stated to the House on several occasions the Government does not intend to return to the former policy of State-assisted public works for the relief of unemployment. No general legislation is contemplated at the present time with regard to the other matter referred to in the question.

Mr. MANDER: Would it not be possible to put into operation the Land Taxation Clauses of the Finance Act, 1931.

HON. MEMBERS: "No."

Mr. R. DAVIES: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state, out of all moneys spent by the State on schemes to provide work for the unemployed during the last five years, how much, approximately, was spent on the purchase of land, material, and wages, respectively?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I
regret that it is not practicable to allocate the expenditure under the heads suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. DAVIES: Is it possible to find out approximately how much of this money is spent on lands? There is a difficulty in ascertaining exactly how much of the money is spent on unemployment relief?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is now asking whether it is possible to isolate the money spent on lands from money spent in other directions. I must have notice of that question.

MEANS TEST.

Mr. COCKS: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour what would have been the total cost to the Exchequer of unemployment benefit in the past 12 months if the means test had been abolished and benefit restored to its former level?

Sir H. BETTERTON: On the hypothesis stated in the question, the total cost of insurance benefit and transitional payments, together with administrative expenses and interest on debt, in the year 1932–3 would, it is estimated, have been about £147,500,000 of which about £109,000,000 would have fallen on the Exchequer.

Mr. COCKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it compares with the actual cost?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have the figures here. The cost actually incurred under the law as it stood was £118,000,000, of which £79,500,000 is chargeable to the State.

Mr. LAWSON: Axe we to take it that the Government have saved £36,000,000 during the past 12 months?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have given the figures in answer to a question, and the hon. Member must draw his own conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS (for Mr. HICKS): 36.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet ascertained the position as regards the enforcement of the Workmen's Compensation Act in the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who, as the House knows, is paying a short visit to the Near East, has asked me to reply to his questions. It was found necessary to suggest to the High Commissioner that certain amendments should be made in the Federated Malay States Enactment before bringing it into operation. I have no information as to when it will be found possible to introduce the amending measure, but I assume that in the meantime the Governor of the Straits Settlements will prefer to defer bringing the corresponding Ordinance into operation in the Colony. But the Governor will be asked to insure that there will be no unnecessary delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT AND COLONIAL CONTRACTS.

Mr. MITCHESON: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what preference, if any, is given by the Crown Agents for the Colonies in the placing of their contracts to goods manufactured by purely British firms over those goods manufactured in the United Kingdom by firms whose capital is owned entirely or substantially by foreign persons or organisations outside the United Kingdom?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: It is impracticable to make any distinction between goods manufactured by purely British firms and those manufactured in the United Kingdom by firms whose capital is owned entirely or substantially by foreign persons or organisations outside the United Kingdom.

Mr. MITCHESON: Will the hon. Member take steps to see if it is possible to give this preference?

Mr. MacDONALD: I am advised that the hon. Member's suggestion is impracticable. In any case employment is given in this country, which is the chief point in the question.

Mr. MITCHESON: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what preference, if any, is given by the Stationery Office in the placing of their contracts to
goods manufactured by purely British firms over those goods manufactured in the United Kingdom by firms whose capital is owned entirely or substantially by foreign persons or organisations outside the United Kingdom?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: A substantial measure of preference is given in favour of British goods. It would not, however, be practicable to discriminate between those United Kingdom manufacturers whose capital is British owned and those whose capital is entirely or substantially owned by foreign persons or organisations.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Have not the present Government been encouraging foreigners to establish businesses here, and is it fair now to attack them?

Mr. MITCHESON: 43.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what preference, if any, is given by the Office of Works in the placing of their contracts to goods manufactured by purely British firms over those goods manufactured in the United Kingdom by firms whose capital is owned entirely or substantially by foreign persons or organisations outside the United Kingdom?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): For the reasons given to my hon. Friend in reply to his similar questions on the 6th April, it is not considered either practicable or desirable to give such a preference.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mrs. RUNGE: 40.
asked the Minister of Health if his Department has further considered the best methods of handling the temporarily dispossessed residents of slum areas under clearance; and whether, as a result of such consideration, he is prepared to offer any advice on the subject to local authorities?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has arranged that his officers shall be available for consultation by individual authorities on all aspects of work under the Act of 1930, but the circumstances of different towns vary so greatly that he is not at present clear that he could usefully offer any further general advice on this subject at the present moment.

STATISTICS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS (for Mr. HICKS): 41.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of houses at 31st March, 1933, or nearest possible date, which have been completed since 1919 under the various State-assisted schemes by local authorities and by private enterprise, respectively; the total number of houses com-

The following Statement shows the number of houses returned by Local Authorities as having been completed in England and Wales by Local Authorities and Private Enterprise since the 1st January, 1919.

—
By Local Authorities.
By Private Enterprise.
Total.


With State-Assistance:






Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919
…
170,090
4,545
174,635


Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919
…
—
39,186
39,186


Housing, etc., Act, 1923
…
75,309
362,738
438,047


Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924
…
445,521
11,953
457,474


Housing Act, 1930
…
7,800
6
7,806


Total (to 28th February, 1933)
…
698,720
418,428
1,117,148


Without State-Assistance (to 30th September, 1932*)
…
8,140
852,255
860,395


Grand Total—Houses completed
…
706,860
1,270,683
1,977,543


In addition to the above, 13,343 houses have been provided to rehouse persons displaced under Improvement and Reconstruction Schemes confirmed prior to the Act of 1930.


* The latest date up to which information is available.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX (FOREIGNERS).

Mr. HUTCHISON: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider legislation enabling the Office of Special Commissioners of Income Tax to grant permits for limited periods to applicants who are foreigners but who desire to reside for limited periods in each year in this country and who will thereby only be subject to Income Tax on income spent in this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under the existing law a foreigner not domiciled in the United Kingdom who becomes chargeable to Income Tax as a person residing here is liable to tax, in respect of income arising abroad, on so much only of that income as is received in or remitted to the United Kingdom. I am sending my hon. Friend a, leaflet which explains the position.

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (TAXATION).

Mr. COCKS: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish

pleted in the same period by unassisted private enterprise; and the number of local authorities houses which have been provided under slum-clearance schemes?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Since the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

the evidence given before the Raeburn Committee on the Taxation of Co-operative Societies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am looking into this matter.

GOLD STANDARD.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that, before the Government are committed to any steps designed to secure an early return of this country to the Gold Standard, an opportunity will be given for a discussion of this subject by the House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The House is well aware of the general policy of the Government upon this question, and the hon. Member may rest assured that that policy would not be changed without ample opportunity being afforded to the House for discussion.

Mr. GRENFELL: Shall we be informed of any change in policy since we went off the Gold Standard?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The policy of the Government has been stated very explicitly on a number of occasions, and, if hon. Members are not aware of it, that must be because they have not attended to the exposition.

Mr. THORNE: Will this be one of the questions discussed with America?

Mr. GRENFELL: May we be assured that the House will have an opportunity to discuss this subject thoroughly before any change of policy or any departure is entertained?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My answer was quite specific, and I have nothing to add to it.

Mr. LAMBERT: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether the considerable increase in the stock of gold in the Bank of England has anything to do with the currency policy of the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL LOANS (INTEREST).

Mr. MOLSON: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the low rate of interest now payable on Government loans, he will consider the desirability of lowering still further the rate of interest charged to local authorities by the Public Works Loan Board?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that it has been decided to reduce the minimum rate of interest for new advances from the Local Loans Fund to 3⅝ per cent. An announcement of the change will appear in to-day's issue of the London Gazette.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

EX-SERVICE MEN.

Mr. BANFIELD: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many disabled ex-service men have left the Civil Service, either by reason of their disability or through restriction of employment; and what has been the average pension and/or gratuity of such men on leaving?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No central records are kept of ex-service men whose
services are terminated in the circumstances described and I regret, therefore, to be unable to furnish the hon. Member with the information he desires.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE OFFICE (PROMOTIONS).

Mr. BANFIELD: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of promotions to the cierical class in the Public Trustee Office during the last five years, 1928 to 1932, inclusive of P-class clerks, writing assistants, and typists, distinguishing between the Public Trustee Office, London, and the Public Trustee Office, Manchester?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The number of promotions to the clerical class in the Public Trustee Office during the last five years, 1928-1932, inclusive of P-class clerks, writing assistants and typists, is as follows:

Public Trustee Office, London
17


Public Trustee Office, Manchester
7


Total
24

Oral Answers to Questions — WATER SUPPLY, MALTON AND NORTON.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS (for Mr. HICKS): 39.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the water supplied by Norton, East Riding, to Malton had been recently declared by the Malton medical officer to be unfit for human consumption; and what steps are being taken by the local authority concerned to ensure a wholesome and reasonable supply of water to the inhabitants of Malton?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: A single sample of the water supplied by Norton to Malton was found on analysis to be unsatisfactory and the supply was discontinued. Subsequent tests by three independent analysts showed the water to be satisfactory, and the supply has now been resumed. The arrangements between the two councils are temporary only, and my right hon. Friend is informed by the Malton Council that they will at an early date submit to him a scheme for a permanent supply.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in tins district, where there have been 25 deaths and three very bad cases of fever, the people are terri-
fied and are all collecting water from a pump in the brewery yard? Does he not think that he ought to try to persuade the local authority to take action in the matter?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have had frequent consultations with the local authority in order to decide which of the three is the best water.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Prime Minister say how far he proposes to go to-night, and what business will be taken the first week after we reassemble?

The PRIME MINISTER: In reply to the first part of the question, we propose to finish the Committee stage of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Bill, and the Children and Young Persons Bill, which has come from another place and is purely a consolidating Measure.

When the House resumes after Easter we propose that on Tuesday, 25th April, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall open his Budget. On Wednesday, 26th, and Thursday, 27th, there will be a general discussion on the Budget Resolutions; and on Friday, 28th, consideration of private Members' Bills. On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. SMITHERS: Is it possible, Mr. Speaker, as the time allotted to Questions is not over, to get an answer to Question No. 49 on the Paper, which is important.

Mr. SPEAKER: We have been through the Questions more than once.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 44.

Orders of the Day — RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 6th April].

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Powers of local authorities for the purposes of giving information and advice.)

3.38 p.m.

Major MILNER: I beg to move, in page 7, line 37, at the beginning, to insert the words:
It shall be the duty of
Clause 7 as drawn at present provides that the council of every county borough and every county district shall have power to publish information and advice on quite a number of subjects. The object of the Amendment is to make that provision compulsory instead of permissive and to impose it as a duty upon these local authorities. It seems that the Ministry of Health have considered it right and proper to insert this Clause in the Bill and that being so, it is desirable that there should be uniformity throughout the country and that the matter should be compulsorily made one for the attention of the councils and not left to their discretion. Obviously, the exercise of that discretion would depend on the composition of a local council which might consist largely of landlords or of members of some other class of the community. For that reason the exercise of this power which is a very useful one should be made compulsory.
I ought perhaps to have prefaced my few remarks but by saying that I differ to some extent from some of my hon. Friends, in that I do not consider that it is the function of such bodies to give advice. I think it is right and proper that they should give information of the fullest possible kind, and in my own experience I have known of information having been most valuable. In the city of Leeds the local rating authorities, under the authority of the finance committee, give information to tenants and landlords, as to permitted rents and so
on, which is extremely valuable. It is almost impossible for the ordinary individual to know what is the correct rent which he ought to pay, particularly when it is a compounded rent, and it is only by inquiring of the rating authorities that that information can be obtained. I have no hesitation in saying that if it is more generally known, as it will be if this Bill becomes an Act, advantage will be very generally taken of this facility, and many thousands of people who pay rent in excess of what they need pay will be able to ascertain their rights and the amount that they ought to pay, by inquiring of the local authority or the appropriate committee. I think it is not sufficient merely to publish the information, but that power should be extended to supply the information on demand. One reason for making this power compulsory is that obviously there are tenants and landlords in all areas who require this information.

3.43 p.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): First of all, to clear the discussion, let me point out to the Committee that the rather wider question to which the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) referred, as to what should be the power of the authority as regards giving advice, comes up specifically on a later Amendment in my name, and we need not deal with it now. That leaves for the present the question of whether these powers should be obligatory or optional on the part of the local authority. The recommendation of the Inter-Departmental Committee, upon which this enactment is based, contemplated expressly that the powers should be optional, not compulsory, and that was, I think, for a very good reason. If we look at the Clause, we shall see that the powers are given to
the council of every county borough and of every county district.
The Committee contemplated that it would not be necessary or useful for every one of these authorities to undertake these functions, and one can well imagine that there are many county districts where, as a matter of fact, it would be quite unnecessary. On the other hand, in most of the county boroughs undoubtedly it would be necessary. In these circumstances, I think there is something disproportionate in imposing
the matter as a duty upon the councils, and really we are providing all that is necessary in providing for the optional power. I would point out to the Committee that we may impose this obligation upon a council, but if they were not in sympathy with the function themselves and did not want to carry it out, there is no earthly way in which you could make them. One can bring a horse to water, but 20 cannot make him drink. In these circumstances, I think we are dealing with the actualities of the case in leaving the function optional.
May I take this, the first, occasion of making a suggestion to the Committee on the conduct of business and for the convenience of the Committee? As the Committee is aware, we have an understanding that we shall come to the conclusion of the Committee stage at a reasonable time to-day. As a matter of fact, we have many interesting Amendments to consider, but they almost all come under the new Clauses, and I believe the Committee will find it convenient, as it were, to save time on the Amendments on the old Clauses, in order that they may have more time at their disposal for the new Clauses at the end of the Bill.

3.46 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I quite agree with the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. We do not want to take up too much time over the present Clauses, so that we may have more chance to discuss the new Clauses; but this is a very substantial Amendment, and I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman brushed it aside so lightly. I do not interpret the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman. I have always felt, as the Committee knows, that the words of a Parliamentary Committee are not final, but only opinions of mortal men, but if I might remind the right lion. Gentleman, the Committee did say:
We recommend that the doubt"—
that is, as to the power of giving advice and information—
should be removed and local authorities empowered to appoint committees for the purpose of giving advice on questions arising under the Acts.
They do not side one way or the other. I have had considerable knowledge and experience of local authorities. I claim to have had a longer experience than
the right hon. Gentleman himself, and I am very sorry that he indicated or implied that if this responsibility was made mandatory, they would try to shirk it.

Sir H. YOUNG: I must correct the hon. Member. I never used any such expression as that they would shirk responsibility. On the contrary, I said that some of them might find it useful to apply the powers and some of them might not.

Sir P. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman said that if you made it compulsory, you could not force them to do the work. I do not think it is necessary to force local authorities to do their duty. When an Act of Parliament is passed, the local authorities, almost without exception, carry out its terms. There may be here or there recalcitrant authorities, but it is such a rare thing that it is needless to be afraid of, and I suggest that if this proposal is really going to be useful, it should be made universal throughout the country. At the present moment local authorities are rather reluctant to take on new duties unless they are required to do so by an Act of Parliament, because of the cost involved-One of the troubles of the local authorities throughout the country is the complexity of the various Acts of Parliament dealing with rent restriction. We spent about three days or more discussing the proposals in detail, in long and, from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, weary debates, different Members putting different interpretations upon different Clauses, but we are Members of Parliament. It is our job to understand Acts of Parliament and to study their terms, but the ordinary working men or women do not understand their rights, and only too often, as any Member of Parliament knows, they find themselves imposed upon because of their ignorance of the law. I entirely agree with the hon. Member opposite, and I would limit the power of these councils to giving information. It is dangerous to empower a body to give advice, and—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that question arises under this Amendment.

Sir P. HARRIS: Very well, Sir Dennis, but I do think that it is important that these committees should be universal so that every tenant should know where to go to get the necessary information and
should have the same machinery available. I know that it may be said that lawyers exist to do this work. I am proud of lawyers, and it may surprise the House to know that I am a lawyer myself, but I have never practised. Lawyers have their purpose, but for the ordinary working man he is an alarming person and only in the last resort does the working man knock at the door of the lawyer for advice. He has terrors of large bills of costs and large fees. Here is a practical proposal to make use of the well-organised experience of local councillors, and I assume that they would give advice with the assistance of a solicitor or the town clerk. If this Clause were made compulsory, it would be one of the most useful features of this Bill. The Minister is anxious to make a big contribution to local government and the housing problem. On paper it will not be a big contribution, but in practice it will be one of the largest contributions that this Bill can make.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: Would the expenses provided for under Sub-section (2) of this 'Clause cover legal advice for the committee that may be set up, and would it include advice from anybody else other than legal people and the collection of information to pass on to tenants or the owners of houses? With regard to the Amendment, either this committee is necessary or it is not. If it is necessary, it ought to be available for everybody. If it is unnecessary, it ought not to be in the Bill at all. There is no need to have this provision if it is of no value. Apparently, however, the Government think that the information and the advice will be of value. If that be so it would be difficult to argue that in one particular area it is needed and that in a neighbouring similar area it is not. It will be possible that one council, which desires to assist the residents in its district, would be prepared to give all the assistance necessary to them in obtaining the privileges to which they are entitled under the Act, whereas another council, less considerate to the people in its area, would not give such advice unless they were compelled. If the advice and information are necessary, we ought not to allow some councils to give it and others to avoid giving it.
I hope that the Minister, having seen the necessity of giving permission to those
councils which desire to do their duty, will see that other districts, where the local authorities have not such a civic sense as their neighbours, are compelled to carry out the duty which their neighbours are carrying out. The Minister said that he could imagine districts where it would not be necessary to give the advice. I cannot imagine such a district anywhere. I can imagine districts where it would not be so necessary as in other districts, but I cannot imagine any district in which there would not be some need of assistance in the direction indicated. If there are poor tenants or uneducated landlords—and all landlords are not educated in the sense that they can understand Acts of Parliament—why should they be denied the opportunity of going to their local councils when they know that perhaps relatives or friends living in a neighbouring area have a right to go to their own council to get the information?

3.56 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: The question of the hon. Member was whether under Subsection (2) the council would be able to charge against the general rate the expense of taking legal advice. The Subsection says that they may charge against the general rate any expenses incurred "under this Section." On the practical issue, the council usually have their own man of law who gives them current advice. Suppose that they had not, it would be a question as to whether or not the expense was reasonably incurred "under the Section." Such a question would fall to be decided by the local auditor and not by myself, and so I must cover anything I say by that reservation. Subject to that, it appears to me a matter of common sense that the expense of obtaining necessary legal explanations and advice would be an expense reasonably incurred "under the section."

Mr. McENTEE: In regard to the collection of information as to alternative accommodation, would the council be entitled to employ people to collect such information as that mentioned in the Clause.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: May I point out that the local authorities referred to in county boroughs and county districts are elected authorities chosen by and responsible to
the inhabitants of the district which they represent. Surely they are the proper people to exercise discretion in a matter of this kind. The hon. and gallant' Member for South East Leeds (Major Milner) expressed the fear that there might be a council composed of a large number of landlords. Surely that would simply mean that in a particular district the inhabitants considered that landlords were the best people to represent them. I do not see how that affects the capability of a council in exercising discretion in such a matter. Again, I was surprised to find the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) objecting to local authorities having discretion in such matters. I take it that it means that he considers it is within his capacity as a Member of this House to express an opinion, but that in his capacity as a member of the London County Council it would be most unwise to give him any discretion. The Clause as it reads is permissive, and I submit that no evidence has been put before us yet that would justify us in making the Clause mandatory. I hope very much that the Government will continue to resist the Amendment.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: If the provision in the Clause were made obligatory, it would be very useful, and it would save a deal of time if instructions were issued in the form of a leaflet. I rather think that this is a question between landlord and tenant, and this would definitely set out the rights of both parties and save a lot of time. It would also be useful from the point of view of councillors and guardians, and also the local Members of Parliament, who, perhaps, might not be too well aware of what the Act meant unless they had an explanatory pamphlet issued by the local authority. I do not think that the Minister would be doing anything wrong by standardising the system throughout the country. It would be a step in the right direction. It would save much waste of time, and be most useful.
With regard to Sub-section (2), which relates to the question of expenses, when it is a question of legal interpretation as to the power on the part of the auditor to surcharge, it is very irritating for the housing authority to find auditors
sent by the Department saying that it is a question of surcharge. I should certainly think, as a matter of administration, that if a resolution were placed on the minutes, it should be binding, and that authority ought to be sufficient without the auditor having to deal with it as a matter of surcharge.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss, or suggest on this Amendment an alteration of Subsection (2).

Mr. LOGAN: With all respect, I am dealing only with Sub-section (2), which relates to the question of expenditure.

The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly what is out of order. This Amendment is merely dealing with whether the power given in Sub-section (1) should be optional on the part of a Council, or obligatory.

Mr. LOGAN: Is it your ruling, then, that as regards Sub-section (2), which deals with the question of expense, we have no right to raise a matter in regard to the question of expense?

The CHAIRMAN: Not in the way in which the hon. Member is doing.

Mr. LOGAN: Then I will confine myself strictly to the obligatory powers we are asking, and I would certainly appeal to the Minister to insert the few words of the Amendment which, I think, would be very useful indeed.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: It is with very great surprise that I find myself to-day able to give my whole-hearted support to this proposal in the Bill. Nothing could give me greater pleasure than the right hon. Gentleman's No. 1 speech, but so far as his No. 2 speech is concerned, I will not go into that on this Amendment. I want to call attention to the fact that this Amendment is simply another instance of the desire of some people sitting here comfortably to impose more burdens upon local authorities. I resent the sort of idea which prevails in the minds of certain people that you can lay down all sorts of orders in the House of Commons, and, as an hon. Member has just suggested, standardise the whole of the work of the local authorities wherever they may
be. Some people seem to think that we, sitting here, should always tell local authorities exactly what they should do. It is one of the things which causes resentment among local authorities, and causes people to talk about officials at Whitehall, and all that sort of thing. Therefore, I am perfectly delighted that the Minister has resisted the Amendment. I am amazed at the growing development of what I might call the neolithic mind in right hon. and hon. Members of the Socialist party. [Interruption.] They are not absolutely prehistoric. They are not so prehistoric as the paleolithic mind represented by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). In matters of this kind he thinks one way one minute and another way another minute. I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), and I am sure he could not possibly—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will assist the discussion if he will explain how in giving a description of the minds of Members of this House, he intends to relate it to the Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was saying that certain people wish to put compulsion on the local authorities, and was pointing out that this perpetual idea of compulsion is not in any sense the way in which great administrators of the Crown ought to deal with local authorities. They should take the broad outlook which the Minister has taken this afternoon, and I again congratulate him, if I may do so with very great respect, on resisting this Amendment. I hope that he will take a similar course throughout the Debate, and have nothing to do with these antiquated ideas.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: Hon. Members will be very pleased to observe that on this Amendment the Minister has the support of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). He has described Members of this party in certain ways. Perhaps I might suggest to him that passibly—

The CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that I stopped that discussion.

Mr. BANFIELD: The Amendment, after all, is really one of some substance, and I would draw attention to the fact that on the question of the rights and duties of landlords and tenants there is a tremendous amount of ignorance, and that a number of people, with the best will in the world, have considerable difficulty in understanding the working of these Acts. That applies not only to tenants but to a number of landlords, too. As one who has had considerable experience of local authorities and as a member of a local authority for many years, I suggest to the Minister that unless this Clause is made compulsory upon local authorities, I am of the opinion that it will become more or less of a dead letter. Only a very limited number of authorities who, for the most part, have rather advanced views, and a desire that the people shall really receive this information, will put the Clause into operation. My experience of local authorities has been that if you make a Clause permissive, the great probabilities are that a council will say, "We have already got sufficient to do as it is, and consequently we are very 10th indeed to give information and advice which may not meet with the approval of all sections of our citizens," and they will take the safe and easy line, and decline to issue anything at all.
The Minister treated this Amendment as if it were of little consequence. He said that he did not consider the information was necessary in all cases, and used that as an argument why the Clause should be permissive. I suggest that, in the vast majority of cases, the information is necessary, and that if the vast majority of citizens require it, they should be entitled to it. Then the Minister said that even if these words were put in, he had no power or authority to make a local authority do what we wish. That may be true, but my own experience, again, is that if you put in an Act of Parliament that it is the duty of the local authority to do a certain thing, local authorities in the vast majority of cases will carry it out, because it is expressly laid down that it is their duty to do so. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee know as well as I do that we are continually getting from our constituents questions relating to houses and rent restrictions, and asking for advice as to what should be done by this,
that and the other person. I think it is agreed that it would be far more satisfactory, and in accordance with our desire, if local councils did give this information and advice in the light of local circumstances, and that it would be far better if it were made a matter of duty.
I am satisfied from the information I have received and my long experience as a local councillor that the vast majority of those who will be affected by this Clause would welcome all the information they could get, would be pleased to be able to go to the council offices to find out where they stood. I think it would make for better relations between tenants and landlords. Everyone knows what happens now. Tenants get into difficulties; landlords get into difficulties; they go to this person, who gives them advice in one sense, and to another person who gives them advice in another sense, and the whole position is very unsatisfactory. There is a tremendous amount of quite understandable ignorance, particularly on the part of tenants, and I suggest that by accepting this Amendment we shall be doing the best for all concerned.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I wish to support the Amendment and I had expected that the Minister of Health would have accepted it. Clause 7 is a good one, but we want to make it a better one. I understood the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) to say that local authorities might feel that it was unnecessary to make use of this Clause and that the complexion of the local authority could be regarded as the complexion of a particular neighbourhood. This Clause is supposed to apply to the whole of the country, and if it is good for one locality it ought to be good for another. No one ought to be able to evade the provisions of it by saying that it is of no use and they will not put it into operation. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) took advantage of this Amendment not merely to put forward some arguments, but in order to make peace with the other side. Yesterday he was fighting the Government; to-day he wants to get back into their good graces, and is supporting them.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I explain that my line yesterday is exactly the same as
the line I have taken to-day. On this occasion the Socialists are not inclined to be elastic enough; yesterday that was the position of the Government. I am in favour of a great deal of elasticity and of trusting people, whether they are Members of the House of Commons yesterday or members of local authorities to-day.

Mr. TINKER: I will not follow that point. I am not able to understand what the hon. Member is trying to get at. We are asking for this Amendment because we believe it will be good for the landlords and the tenants. Anyone will then know where he can get information—in fact he will be able to demand it from his local authority. As the Bill stands now it remains permissive, people cannot insist upon the information, and we may have a position in which half the municipal authorities will not put the Clause into operation.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the Minister tell us whether a tenant will be able to go to the town hall and ask for advice supposing the local authority does not publish the information herein. In that case can he go and get advice?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am not sure whether the hon. Member is laying stress upon the word "advice" or the word "information."

Mr. WALLHEAD: Information—and advice.

Sir H. YOUNG: The Bill leaves it optional as to whether a local Authority shall or shall not undertake this function. If they do not undertake this function then I imagine that there is no right on the part of the tenant to require the information from the local authority.

Mr. WALLHEAD: May I suggest that that is an Added reason why this Amendment should be passed. Those who have had experience of local administration know that many permissive Acts of Parliament are ignored. That is why Members here are pressing for this Amendment. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has enlivened the House with a description of the various minds which exist here, but I suggest to him that there is an even earlier type than those he mentioned, and that is the eolithic.

The CHAIRMAN: I have twice ruled that hon. Members cannot go into that question now.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish to support the Amendment. I came down on purpose to do so, and since hearing the reply of the Minister of Health to the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) I am still more anxious to support it, because of the experience I have had as to the need for giving poor folk information. Poor folk are in the hands of those who own their homes, and for years we have been struggling to put them in a position in which they will have somewhere to go where they will get information which will be in accordance with the law. This Amendment gives the Minister the opportunity of putting his own high ideals into practice. I have heard him make speeches which rant on the humanitarian lines of this Amendment. In the West of Scotland—indeed, it operates all over—we have found landlords, estate agents, or factors, as we call them, issuing little notices to tenants telling them that unless they pay their arrears of rent they will have to clear out by a certain date. It has been my misfortune to have the poorest of the poor bring these notices to me and ask me what they are to do. When I have told them that the notice is not worth the paper it is written on some of those folk have fainted, collapsed. I have told them there is only one individual in the country who can evict them from their homes, irrespective of what they do, whether they pay rent or not, and that is the sheriff. The landlord or factor has to get the sanction of the sheriff before anyone can be evicted.
To many people the concession for which we are asking here will be of more importance than anything else in the Bill. To accept the Amendment would be a, nice, kind, generous act on the part of a Government which has power to do things. Here is something the Government could do which would not cost anything, would make no inroads upon their economy plans. The Government would be acting the part which a Government ought to play; that is defending those who cannot defend themselves. That is why we of the Labour movement, we Socialists again, are asking for this on behalf of the poorest of the poor, who
do not know anything about the law. Mark my words about this Bill. I told Lord Hailsham, when he was Sir Douglas Hogg, what would happen with his Bill. I say that this Bill is one of the most complicated Bills I have ever studied. The Minister of Heath can take it from me that just so far as he deals out generosity to the poor when we appeal to him so will we deal generously with him when he finds himself "up against it" with this Measure. We say that local authorities must look after the interests of the common people, just as on the Scottish Bill we urged that those who are actually doing the work of building the houses should get conditions such as can be claimed by the workers in every other industry.
We are not asking for anything extraordinary, nothing which it is beyond the power of the Minister to grant. All we say is that it ought to be the duty of the local authority to give information. Landlords and factors are nearly all lawyers, or they have legal advice at their disposal, but the tenant, the poor tenant, has none. He is of the great mass, the great unwashed, so to speak. [Laughter.] They understand what I mean—the people I am addressing. I am not playing up to the Tories or the rich in this House, not one wee bit. Make no mistake about that. I am a class man. I am appealing on behalf of my class, who are the victims of this system. They never had the advantage of an education, and they do not know anything about the intricacies of the law. They do not know that they have rights, or that we in this House legislate at times on their behalf, making laws that will protect them. There is some semblance of protection to the poor tenant in this Bill, and in the particular Clause, and in order that the tenants may have the advantage of it we have put down this Amendment. It is in order that they may know that here is protection for them; if they do not know about it, they have no protection. All that we ask is that the Minister will accept this Amendment in the spirit in which it is put forward.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 256.

Division No. 139.]
AYES.
[3.29 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Clarke, Frank
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Grimston, R. V.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Apsley, Lord
Copeland, Ida
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cowan, D. M.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cranborne, Viscount
Hales, Harold K.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Craven-Ellis, William
Hanbury, Cecil


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hanley, Dennis A.


Balniel, Lord
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Curry, A. C.
Harris, Sir Percy


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hartland, George A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Davison, Sir William Henry
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Bernays, Robert
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Batterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Donner, P. W.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Doran, Edward
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Duggan, Hubert John
Holdsworth, Herbert


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Dunglass, Lord
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Eastwood, John Francis
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Braithwaite, J. O. (Hillsborough)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Horsbrugh, Florence


Briant, Frank
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Hurd, Sir Percy


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Bullock,-Captain Malcolm
Fraser, Captain Ian
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Burnett, John George
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Ganzoni, Sir John
Knight, Holford


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Carver, Major William H.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Goff, Sir Park
Lewis, Oswald


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Goldie, Noel B.
Liddall, Walter S.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Lindsay, Noel Ker[...]


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Pete, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Smithers, Waldron


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)
Pickering, Ernest H.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Pike, Cecil F.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Potter, John
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Eveiyn G. H.
Stevenson, James


McCorquodale, M. S.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Storey, Samuel


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Stourton, Hon. John J.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rea, Walter Russell
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


McKie, John Hamilton
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Summersby, Charles H.


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Reid, David D, (County Down)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Maitland, Adam
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rentoul Sir Gervais S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Thompson, Luke


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Martin, Thomas B.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Warrender, Sir victor A. G.


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Mitcheson, G. G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wedderburn, Henry James Serymgeour.


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Weymouth, Viscount


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Salt, Edward W.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Munro, Patrick
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sanderson, sir Frank Barnard
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Scone, Lord
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wise, Alfred R.


Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


North, Captain Edward T.
Shute, Colonel J. J.
Womersley, Walter James


O'Connor, Terence James
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Palmer, Francis Noel
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Pearson, William G.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.



Peat, Charles U.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.


Petherick, M.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)



Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Daggar, George
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Dobbie, William
McEntee, valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
McGovern, John



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James

Division No. 140.]
AYES.
[4.32 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bernays, Robert
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Sevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, George Henry
Pickering, Ernest H.


Briant, Frank
Holdsworth, Herbert
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
John, William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cowan, D. M.
Kirkwood, David
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dobbie, William
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McGovern, John
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Ker, J. Campbell


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Donner, P. W.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Doran, Edward
Knox, Sir Alfred


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Duckworth, George A. V.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Duggan, Hubert John
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Apsley, Lord
Dunglass, Lord
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Aske, Sir Robert William
Eastwood, John Francis
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Edge, Sir William
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Atholl, Duchess of
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lewis, Oswald


Atkinson, Cyril
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Liddall, Walter S.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Llewellin, Major John J.


Balniel, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Barclay-Harvey, C. M,
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mabane, William


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Blindell, James
Ganzoni, Sir John
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Borodale, Viscount
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
McKie, John Hamilton


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Glossop, C. W. H.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. sir Ian


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Goff, Sir Park
Magnay, Thomas


Brass, Captain Sir William
Goldie, Noel B.
Maitland, Adam


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Graves, Marjorie
Martin, Thomas B.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Buchan, John
Grimtton, R. V.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Burnett, John George
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cadogan, Hon, Edward
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Moreing, Adrian C.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hales, Harold K.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Carver, Major William H.
Hanbury, Cecil
Moss, Captain H. J.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hanley, Dennis A.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Munro, Patrick


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hartington. Marquess of
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hartland, George A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Clarke, Frank
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peterst'ld)


Clarry, Reginald George
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
North, Captain Edward T.


Cochrane, Commander Hon, A, D.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
O'Connor, Terence James


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Cooper, A. Duff
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Patrick, Colin M.


Copeland, Ida
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pearson, William G.


Cranborne, Viscount
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Peat, Charles U.


Craven-Ellis, William
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hurd, Sir Percy
Petherick, M.


Curry, A. C.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada




Pike, Cecil F.
Scone, Lord
Thompson, Luke


Potter, John
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Shute, Colonel J. J.
Train, John


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Ray, Sir William
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Smithers, Waldron
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Weymouth, Viscount


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Stevenson, James
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Runge, Norah Cecil
Stewart, J. H. (File, E.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Storey, Samuel
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Strauss, Edward A.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wise, Alfred R.


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Summersby, Charles H.
Womersley, Walter James


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Sutcliffe, Harold
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Salt, Edward W.
Tate, Mavis Constance
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)



Savery, Samuel Servington
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Sir George Penny and Lord Erskine.

4.43 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 7, line 39, to leave out the words "and give advice."
This Amendment is moved in order to meet the criticisms which were made during the Second Reading on behalf of the local authorities' associations to the effect that local authorities and committees of local authorities ought not to be put in the position of tendering advice to individual landlords and tenants on their rights and duties under the law. The reason, as I understand it, for that criticism made at that time, was that to impose a duty or powers upon local authorities to advise individuals on their legal rights would place them in the same relation to those individuals as a private lawyer, and would put the local authorities in an impossible position. The position would be impossible for the reason that it might be of frequent occurrence that, after having obtained advice from the local authorities that his rights were such and such, an individual might go to the courts, and the authoritative tribunal might decide that his rights were otherwise and that the local authority had been wrong. That would produce a clash between two public authorities so unfortunate as to be actually disastrous. It was put very clearly that. it would be disastrous to the prestige of the local authority if they were to find themselves in a position so utterly false.
That criticism appeared to me to be of very real account. Subsequently it was supported by an authoritative represen-
tation on behalf of the local association most concerned, the Association of Municipal Corporations, who represented that they were incapable of fulfilling the obligation that we were placing upon them and that if they tried to fulfil the obligation, they might land themselves in a most unfortunate position. I believe I am not wrong in saying that the same attitude is authoritatively taken by the Urban District Councils' Association. I am encouraged to believe that that is so. This Amendment covers much the same ground as those which have been put down by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston) and by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones), and I believe that their Amendments have been put down not without some form of official encouragement from the associations to which I have referred. I believe that, by releasing the local authorities from this duty, and thus avoiding the dangers to which I have referred, we shall nevertheless leave them in a position to discharge useful functions, through their appropriate committees, in assisting tenants and, of course, landlords also, in obtaining information which is useful to them in ascertaining their position.
I will specify one or two of the most important matters upon which they will be empowered to collect and give information. They will be able to collect and give information on the one matter in regard to which I think it is most necessary that there should be some source of information through official channels. That is as to the alteration of permitted
increases of rent consequent upon changes in the rates. This has been a ceaseless source of trouble in the past, owing to the ignorance of tenants as to what these changes were, and the Clause would, I think, be justified simply on the ground of providing tenants with adequate information on this single matter.
Secondly, the committees will be able to provide tenants with the information which they need, and which, as has already been pointed out to-day, they, being often humble persons, cannot possibly have, on the procedure which it is necessary for them to follow in order to obtain their rights under the Bill. The committee would not be able to advise them on their actual rights, because of the difficulties to which I have referred, but would be able to inform them as to the procedure which they ought to follow in order to establish their rights—a very important and useful function. For instance, they will be able to tell them how to obtain certificates from the local authority as to the state of repair of their premises—an incessant cause of trouble in the past. This, again, is a function so useful that I think it would of itself justify the Clause as it will stand. The committees will also be able to provide individual applicants with particulars as to the available alternative accommodation, because, as representing the housing authority, they will have, or, if they have not, they ought to have, information as to what accommodation is available and be able to put it in the possession of the tenants. I believe that this Amendment will leave the Clause in a workable state. I recognise, from the representations of the local authorities, that in its original form it had great dangers, which we ought to remove before we allow it to pass into law.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Committee will agree with me that generally speaking the concessions which are made in these cases bring a little comfort to great masses of the people; but the right hon. Gentleman's concessions have been very few on any Bill that he has introduced. Some have been just visible to the naked eye; some have been crab-like—they have moved sideways, neither forward nor backward; and this Amendment definitely moves backwards. The whole subject of
rent restriction is one which, personally, I abhor. It is far too complicated for me, as a plain person, and it has caused a good deal of perturbation of mind to very large numbers of people. On the whole, landlords are able to profit by the advice of trained legal minds, but the ordinary tenant of the small non-parlour house, who finds it difficult to make ends meet week by week, would be terrorised at the thought, even if he had the money, of entering a lawyer's office to seek advice. The right hon. Gentleman has based a good deal of the case for his Bill on the fact that he has followed the Marley Committee's Report. He did so on this particular point. The Marley Committee definitely recommended that power should be given to set up committees to give information and advice, and they went on to say:
We have already indicated that much of the difficulty in regard to the enforcement of the existing law on this subject is due to ignorance.
That, of course, is true. It is true partly because of the complexity of the subject, and partly because most people, although they are assumed to know the law of the land, do not know it. In that respect the ordinary person outside the House is, perhaps, as closely acquainted with the law as some of us who have made the laws and who sit in the House of Commons. There was a definite recommendation based upon the fact that most people do not understand the complexities of this very modern branch of law, and that proposal was put into the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot plead that he had to introduce the Bill in a great hurry. He had the Report in his pigeon-holes for over a year before he introduced the Bill into the House. He had every opportunity of considering all the proposals that were made. I have no doubt that he spent long and weary nights in examining every paragraph and every sentence of the report, and, having spent over a year on this continued and prolonged study of the report, he came to the conclusion that it was right to adopt this proposal that local authorities should give information and advice. Now, after the Bill has been before this Committee for some days, we find him going back on his tracks. He goes back on his tracks because, he tells us, local authorities have made representations to him. I should have thought
that, during the Bill's long period of incubation, he might have consulted the local authorities before the Bill was introduced; or that, when it was presented and local authorities had seen it, he might, on the Second Reading, have said to the House, "I am very sorry, but in Committee, because of the views of local authorities, I shall have to make a very important Amendment to Clause 7." But no; this thing goes on until after the Bill has been in Committee for a long time, and now we have an Amendment to leave out the words "and advice."
It may be true that to give advice would embarrass the local authorities, but who are the people who are being embarrassed if there is no one to whom they can look for advice? Nine out of 10 ratepayers in every local authority's area; every tenant of a house—most of them poor people; and there may be poor landlords as well who need advice. The right hon. Gentleman says that local authorities feel the difficulty because, if cases went to the courts, there might be a conflict of opinion between two authorities, but I venture to submit that that is not a new situation. Indeed, that kind of situation has been a source of great wealth to the legal profession in the past, and, no doubt, will be in the future. Seriously, if the right hon. Gentleman accepts the report of the committee, which he says he has done, and prepares his Bill on the basis of that report, he ought not at this stage to go back upon it in view of pressure which has been brought to bear, and in view of the fact that members of the legal profession may not like it. The right hon. Gentleman put the emphasis of his objection on the local authorities, but I should suspect that both branches of the law feel very strongly about this giving of legal advice.
The right hon. Gentleman is prepared to allow the giving of information, but there is a very thin dividing line between the giving of information and the conclusions to be drawn from the information. Indeed, the information may be cast in such a form that it is, in fact, advice. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman "go the whole hog"? He says he is making this Clause now a practical, working Clause, but I do not attach any importance to the information that is going to be given under it. If he cuts out the
giving of advice, what is the information that is to be given? It will be information couched in legal language which the ordinary person cannot understand. Is it to be information which will enable the ordinary person without a legal education to draw his own conclusions? It is not. It is going to be a little piece of stilted information putting in language almost as bald and almost as unintelligible as that of the Act itself what the Act means. My view, and the view of my hon. Friends, is that the deletion of these two words "and advice," after the defeat of the first Amendment which was moved, virtually destroys the value of the Clause. I should hope that hon. Members opposite who appreciate the difficulties of tenants in this matter, and the complexities of the law regarding rent restriction, will be prepared on this occasion to stand by the Marley Report, to stand by the Bill as it was originally introduced, and to reject the Minister's Amendment.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has given away the ease for retaining these two words in the Bill. He has referred to the complexity of the Acts dealing with rent restriction, but I would submit that that is really the best reason why the Minister has decided to move to leave out these two words. It is clear that there is a dividing line between giving information and giving advice, and, so far as the giving of information is concerned, the local authorities or their officers are not being asked to do anything that is outside the scope of any local authority or of the main officials of the different authorities in various parts of the country. In this connection, I would suggest that the Minister might, after the Bill reaches the Statute Book, prepare some kind of summary of its main provisions, not in the stilted language to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield has referred, but in plain terms which may be understood by the average tenant or the average landlord. I may say that, when the Act of 1923 was passed, I myself, happening to be the clerk of a very small local authority, was asked by my authority whether I could prepare some kind of two-page handbill or leaflet briefly setting out in ordinary
language the provisions of the Act. That is one thing, and a very easy thing, for a local authority to do.
But, when you come to the point of giving advice, and an aggrieved individual, whether a landlord or a tenant, coming to the officer of the local authority for advice, the position is entirely changed. Perhaps a second appointment would be necessary before it would be possible to give advice, because it might be necessary to see the rent books right back to 1914. It is not merely questions that arise under the Rent Restrictions Acts with which you have to deal. There are other problems connected with the ordinary law of landlord and tenant which have to be considered. I think most Members who have had any experience of the working of the Rent Restrictions Acts will agree that the lay clerk of a local authority, who has had no legal experience whatever in connection with the law of landlord and tenant generally or the administration of these Acts, would find it an intolerable burden if he were expected to give advice upon specific questions which would be submitted to him either by a landlord or a tenant. The Minister is perfectly justified in saying that it would cause an intolerable position. A poor tenant who has accepted in good faith advice given by the official of a local authority might find an action taken against him by his landlord. It is not till then that he seeks professional advice, and he is told possibly that the advice given by the official is not to be relied upon, and he not only has to pay for the advice this time but is also mulcted in costs.
A Clause of this kind is not going to be in the slightest degree a detriment to the legal profession. I can imagine it having the effect of actually increasing litigation. I remember a time when at banquets to which neither the Press nor the public were admitted the legal fraternity used to toast clergymen and schoolmasters who prepared wills upon which a good deal of litigation ensued. If this Clause went through in its original form, we should have to add the officers of local authorities who were advising landlords and tenants. After all, the Bill as it will stand with this Amendment goes as far as it reasonably can go with regard to local authorities. Local authorities do not exist for the purpose of giving advice
to individuals upon specific matters. If they are to give advice in this case, why not in specific cases connected with public health or questions of rates, or innumerable other cases which constantly crop up. Obviously, it is the duty of local authorities to give information, and particularly the kind of information that is contemplated by this Clause.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Suppose a tenant goes to a local authority and says: "What is my position under the new Act?" Is the answer to that question information or advice?

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: If he asks what the position is on the general question, that is information. If he produces a notice to quit or a notice to increase rent and wants to know what his position is having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, that is obviously advice and not information. I trust that the Committee will support the Minister in this very reasonable Amendment, which is one of the very few that he has agreed to. The point was mentioned on Second Reading by myself and others, and we feel gratified that, at any rate, one point that was mentioned on the Second Reading has met with consideration and has been accepted.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: It would be well if the Committee had some information in turn as to the reason why the Marley Committee recommended that there should be a Clause in the Bill enabling local councils to give advice. The Marley report says:
It appears to us that behind the suggestions which were made to us for the appointment of rent courts or reference committees there lay a desire, not for some new, formal court of law, but for an informal lay committee which might act as an unofficial conciliation board and centre of information and advice. As there appears to be doubt whether there is authority for their appointment, and as we think that they may serve a useful purpose in certain areas, we recommend that the doubt should be removed and local authorities empowered to appoint committees for the purpose of giving advice on questions arising under the Acts.
It is pretty clear that there was a great volume of opinion submitted to the Committee which pointed out the necessity of what the Committee called some informal lay committee which might act as
an unofficial conciliation board and centre of information and advice. The Amendment will make the Clause read in this way:
The council of every county borough and of every county district shall have power to publish information.
The county borough or the county district council will not be empowered to give information to anyone who may apply. It is simply a power to publish information for the assistance of landlord and tenants. There will be no power whatever, not even in the way the Minister suggested, on the part of county councils, county districts, or county boroughs to give any information at all. They will simply be able to publish a leaflet drawn up possibly by the town clerk.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Perhaps the hon. Member has overlooked a consequential Amendment lower on the Paper which gives power to furnish particulars.

Mr. BANFIELD: On an earlier occasion I expressed the opinion that this Clause would be unworkable and inoperative and that the proportion of local authorities who took any action under the Clause would be very small indeed. The Clause as it stands would confer a tremendous advantage upon many people and not solely tenants, because we all know the type of landlord who owns three or four houses is not a very wealthy man and knows little of the effects of Acts of Parliament. All the good that there is in the Clause is going to be lost. I very much regret that the Minister has allowed himself to be persuaded by the representatives of local authorities. I suspect that the legal profession think that in some way someone is going to get legal advice on the cheap and that they have it in their mind that the only kind of legal advice that people should have is what they go to a lawyer and pay for. People only go to a lawyer after a great deal of consideration and weighing up of pros and cons. The desire not to be mixed up with legal entanglements has led in many cases to gross injustice being done, certainly to tenants and possibly to landlords as well. Rather than go to possible expense, they allow undue advantage to be taken of them.
Every time that we raise some objection the Minister points out that the Bill
is based on the Marley Report, and he has rubbed it in over and over again that this party has some responsibility in the matter. But, when it comes to a very important point like this, where the Committee made a recommendation which in our opinion would be of tremendous advantage to many people, he says: "In this case the Marley Report was not as good as it has been in other instances." He makes few or no concessions. He is very hard-hearted. Now be has moved an Amendment which will not improve the Bill but will make it considerably worse than it was before. We look upon him more in sorrow than in anger, and we hope his heart may be softened somewhat before we get to the end of the Bill. I am satisfied that this provision for the giving of advice by local authorities would not result in the difficulties, the dangers, and the chaos which have been pointed out. Everyone knows that members of the legal profession—and the two hon. Members who have spoken on the point belong to the legal profession—can tell of the terrible things which may happen when any new proposal is put forward, but when the new proposal is put into operation the bogey almost automatically disappears. I am satisfied that there is more good in the Bill than there can possibly be evil, and it is because I believe that the Bill as it stands will give the greatest good to the greatest possible number of people that I support the opposition to the proposed Amendment of the Minister.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) has repeated the observation which fell from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), to the effect that there has been some kind of sinister pressure by the legal profession in order to obtain the proposed Amendment. I can assure him that nothing could be further from the truth. There is nothing in the world which the legal profession could wish for more whole-heartedly in its own interests than that there should be some layman appointed on a committee by the local authority to give advice to tenants of houses coming within these Acts, which, as my right hon. Friend must know, are among the most complicated Measures which have ever been passed through Parliament. There is hardly a syllable, a
line or a sentence of the principal Acts which have not been interpreted in the courts, and many have been the subject of litigation in the Court of Appeal. The position is not easy to reconcile, and to pretend that these are simple matters upon which a body of laymen can offer advice is fantastic. It is probably true to say that the worst service which any layman can give to a fellow layman is to offer legal advice. In so far as the Amendment of the Minister prevents that from being done, it is all to the good.
In my early days at the Bar, when I came back from the War in 1919, there was nothing which softened the asperities of those early years more than the principal Acts, the Rent Restrictions Acts. They were a source of legitimate income to me and to many other people at a time when we had very little income at all, and we enjoyed ourselves immensely in dealing with these matters. I was particularly interested on one occasion when talking to an old admiral friend of mine who occupied a house which just came within the Rent Restrictions Act. He wished that all Acts of Parliament were treated in the same way, and thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was a benefactor to the human race because he had passed an Act of Parliament which the simplest person could understand. He would not believe me when I said that it had been the subject of more conflicting opinions and decisions than any Act of Parliament which had ever been passed.
The Clause says that the council has power to set up a committee to give information and to offer advice, and that the expenses of the committee shall be borne out of the rates. Unless the committee have the assistance of some legal adviser any legal advice which may be given will be valueless and indeed dangerous. Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield is proposing that committees should be set up and paid for out of the rates and should have upon them legal advisers? In that case, his argument that the legal profession is seeking its own interests falls to the ground. If that is the suggestion there would be a good many jobs for the legal profession on these committees. Unless members of the legal
profession were on the committees I do not think that the advice given would be of very much use. Is it not clear that what will happen, and what the Marley Committee intended shall happen, is that the committee will be available to the poor tenant for information?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No.

Mr. O'CONNOR: That is the object of the Clause, at any rate. It will be able to give information as to the facts, and can anybody doubt that in a suitable case it will tender advice which is perfectly plain on a specific point. There is nothing to prevent it from doing that if you take out the words as proposed in the Amendment. To set up an ad hoc committee to give advice and to invest it with a kind of official authority would be a very foolish thing to do. It would lead tenants to expect much more than they were going to get, and lead to a vast increase in litigation which one wants to see kept down to a minimum.

Mr. LOGAN: Does the hon. and learned Member think that the publishing of information will be sufficient, or will it be necessary for those who are not able to understand to ask for an explanation of the information given to them?

Mr. O'CONNOR: As I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury when I ventured to interrupt him, there is a consequential Amendment which we cannot now discuss.

Mr. LOGAN: I was afraid to ask with regard to that Amendment in case I should be ruled out of order.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The consequential Amendment will give power to the committee, besides publishing information, to furnish particulars as to various matters affecting the rights and duties both of landlords and tenants under the principal Acts as to procedure, and as to the availability, extent and character of alternative accommodation.

Mr. LOGAN: Does the hon. and learned Member think that the Amendment which is to be tendered later will be equivalent to providing for the giving of advice?

Mr. O'CONNOR: It is, "to furnish particulars." If you put a person in possession of all the facts you go a very long way towards giving advice. The poor people want to know the facts; what
they have to prove; what kind of alternative accommodation will be available; and upon what must they be satisfied and things of that nature. It is difficult to draw the line when you "furnish particulars" and when you "give advice." The only thing which seems to be objectionable in these words is that it specifically requires the committee to give what nobody giving the information would think was legal advice. I think that, provided the committees have power to furnish particulars and to publish statements, they will be doing all that is desirable in the interests of the tenants.

5.22 p.m.

Major MILNER: I must say to my hon. Friends that I feel that I have no alternative but to support the Minister in this matter. As the Committee know, I have already moved an Amendment making the question of giving information and particulars compulsory, and I am strongly in favour of that being done. But my experience is such that I feel confident that if the words proposed to be left out are left in the Clause definite harm will be done. There is another serious question. If members of a local authority sitting in committee purport to give advice, it is very probable that they will be liable in damages if, in fact, they give advice which is erroneous. There is a further reason why the Amendment of the Minister ought to be accepted. Under the Bill there are a number of grounds given upon which possession may be obtained. In regard to the greater number of those grounds, the words used are:
Where in the opinion of the court suitable alternative accommodation … is available.
It is the opinion of the court, and not the opinion of members of the local authority which matters. The whole intention and value of the Clause is that it will enable local authorities to give information on questions of fact. There is a wide range of information which can be given under that heading. The point I raised, and to which the Minister referred in his speech, was that the most valuable help given to tenants or landlords was where local rating authorities could ascertain and give particulars of the permitted rent at any stage, having regard to the fact that

they have all the figures as to rates and so on at their finger ends. There is a very thin line indeed between giving information as to procedure and advising as to procedure. The Minister indicated that the local committee might advise the tenant in appropriate cases to go to the local health authority and on payment of a shilling receive a certificate.

As to the state of repairs I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), who thinks that the Clause will be rendered valueless if the words are not left in. From my experience of advice given, more particularly by lay magistrates, who sometimes have, and sometimes have not, the advantage of a learned clerk, I am sure that applications for advice in these circumstances would be most inadvisable. Unless it is laid down specifically that advice should be given by the town clerk or by some appropriate or qualified person who presumably would have to be paid, I am sure that it will be far better to leave the matter so that information can be given on a question of fact instead of extending the Clause still further. I support this Amendment. I am not supporting any other Amendment the Minister has put forward, but in this instance I think that he is doing the right thing.

5.27 p.m.

Mrs. TATE: I think that the Minister and hon. and learned Members have made it amply clear that if we were to retain the words "and give advice" the tenants would be in real danger of being put into a difficult position with regard to the law. The Clause as it stand is a little vague. "To publish information" may merely mean to put up a notice on the wall in a local council chamber. I ask the Minister whether it will be possible to insert—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that that matter would come more appropriately on a discussion on the Clause; the hon. Lady cannot take it on this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 42; Noes, 295.

Division No. 141.]
AYES.
[5.30 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Banfield, John William
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw vale)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Batey, Joseph
Cape, Thomas


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Daggar, George
John, William
Price, Gabriel


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorns, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Dobbie, William
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John



Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Duckworth, George A. V.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Duggan, Hubert John
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Dunglass, Lord
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Eales, John Frederick
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Eastwood, John Francis
Ker, J. Campbell


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Edge, Sir William
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Atholl, Duchess of
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Atkinson, Cyril
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Leckie, J. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fermoy, Lord
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Balniel, Lord
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lewis, Oswald


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Fox, Sir Gifford
Liddall, Walter S.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Bonn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Llewellin, Major John J.


Bernays, Robert
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McCorquodale, M. S.


Blindell, James
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)


Borodale, Viscount
Glossop, C. W. H.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McKie, John Hamilton


Boyce, H. Leslie
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Brass, Captain Sir William
Goldie, Noel B.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Briant, Frank
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Gower, Sir Robert
Magnay, Thomas


Broadbent, Colonel John
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Maitland, Adam


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Graves, Marjorie
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Greene, William P. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Buchan, John
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Martin, Thomas B.


Burnett, John George
Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mitcheson, G. G.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Carver, Major William H.
Hales, Harold K.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Moreing, Adrian C.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hanbury, Cecil
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison, William Shepherd


Cazalet, Capt. v. A. (Chippenham)
Harris, Sir Percy
Moss, Captain H. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hartington, Marquess of
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Clarke, Frank
Hartland, George A.
Munro, Patrick


Clarry, Reginald George
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Cooper, A. Duff
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
North, Captain Edward T.


Copeland, Ida
Holdsworth, Herbert
Nunn, William


Cowan, D. M.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
O'Connor, Terence James


Cranborne, Viscount
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Horsbrugh, Florence
Owen, Major Goronwy


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Patrick. Colin M.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pearson, William G.


Curry, A. C.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Peat, Charles U.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hurd, Sir Percy
Penny, Sir George


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Drewe, Cedric
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Petherick, M.




Peto, Sir Basil E.(Devon, Barnstaple)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Savery, Samuel Servington
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Pickering, Ernest H.
Scone, Lord
Thompson, Luke


Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Selley, Harry R.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Pike, Cecil F.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Potter, John
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Train, John


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Shute, Colonel J. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Ray, Sir William
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Rea, Walter Russell
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgsour.


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Smithers, Waldron
Wells, Sydney Richard


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Weymouth, Viscount


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur u.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Robinson, John Roland
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Stevenson, James
Wise, Alfred R.


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Womersley, Walter James


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Runge, Norah Cecil
Strauss, Edward A.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-



Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Sir Victor Warrender and Lord Erskine.


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Summersby, Charles H.



Salt, Edward W.
Sutcliffe, Harold



Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 7, line 41, after the word "Acts," insert the word "and."

In page 7, line 42, after the word "and," insert the words "to furnish particulars." —[Sir H. Young.]

5.37 p.m.

Captain GUNSTON: I beg to move, in page 8, line 1, to leave out from the word "accommodation," to the end of the Sub-section.
Now that we have removed from the Bill the duty of local authorities to give advice there is not much point in the local authorities being able to co-opt people on to a committee simply for the purpose of giving information. If we had kept in the Bill the original words, "and give advice," it would have been necessary to co-opt on to the committee people of legal experience, but now that those words have gone I cannot help feeling, and I know that many local authorities also feel, that it is no longer necessary to maintain the words which I now propose to leave out. Under the Local Government Act of 1894, Section 56, a parish or district council has already the power to appoint a committee, and those committees can co-opt certain persons. I cannot help feeling that we have gone almost far enough in local government in the method of co-option and it seems to me to be rather unwise to co-opt more members on to a committee which, if set up, will have ample
personnel among its own members for carrying out its duties. In regard to such subjects as maternal mortality, child welfare and so on it is very important to co-opt people from outside, but now that we have limited somewhat the function of the local authorities in regard to this particular matter it would be much simpler if we left it to the local authorities to give information, without the necessity of setting up a committee and having to co-opt members on to it. Local authorities are elected to govern their districts and I think in this matter we can leave it to the local authorities.

5.41 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): This particular part of the Clause is not vital to the framework of the Bill, but it is a useful little provision. It enables a committee in certain areas, if it chooses, to appoint certain persons with a wide knowledge of rent restriction law. There are such advisory committees now in existence and to my knowledge they have co-opted certain members, and unless we leave in the words now proposed to be left out those committees will be embarrassed because they will not know whether they are acting illegally. The hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) spoke about the difficulties of rent restriction cases. In my constituency probably the only person who
knows anything about rent restriction is the wife of an unemployed bootmaker. She knows more about rent restriction titan any lawyer in Norwich. That is the sort of person who in any other constituency might usefully be co-opted on to some of these committees. I know of other cases where a member of a public utility society with big experience of housing, rent restriction, and landlord and tenant law is the kind of person who might be co-opted. For these reasons, I think it would be wise if the Amendment were not persisted in.

5.43 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I support the Government on this Amendment. I think it is desirable that where there is a person of experience and knowledge that person should be enabled to serve on a Committee. There is my old friend Dan Ryder, who has made a life study of this problem. He would not think of standing for. Parliament or for a borough council but he has given his life to this particular issue, and his advice was most valuable. It is optional on the part of local authorities to co-opt. They need not do it unless they desire. The Clause says "may."

5.44 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: We have a case in Manchester which might be quoted in support. of the point of view put by the Parliamentary Secretary of the sort of person well qualified to serve on one of these Committees. He was a Labour Member of this House and is now one of the greatest experts on rent restriction law. While we dislike, the principle of co-option, if it is to be accepted, I think it is more appropriate in this case than in most.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

5.47 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am sorry that through the action of the Minister this Clause has been considerably weakened by leaving out the words, "and give advice." Members of the legal profession have argued that they have had nothing at all to do with this deletion; that they have never brought pressure to bear on the Minister through the
municipalities in this connection. If they did not bring pressure to bear on local authorities to see that the Minister of Health did what he has done this afternoon they have obviously neglected their duties as members of the legal profession. But I am sure that they did not neglect their duty. If there are any two professions of which any Minister of Health is afraid they are the legal and the medical professions; and I am satisfied that in this case the legal profession has seen to it that they are not to be done out of jobs in connection with this Clause. I have been astonished at the argument put forward about laymen on committees giving advice on law. There are many members of this Committee who have been on local authorities, as I have myself. When a committee of a municipal council wants to give any kind of legal advice it generally gives it through the town clerk's department; and I have never been able to understand why a municipal authority, composed of men elected to represent the community on that council, should not have power under the law to provide legal advice through the town clerk's department on any conceivable subject affecting the people they represent. I do not think that members of the legal profession would lose anything thereby. If a town council decided to give legal advice through the town clerk's department they would certainly engage members of the legal profession to do so; and if I were a solicitor or barrister I should prefer to be employed by a municipal corporation than engaged casually in the ordinary way.
Hon. Members say that the municipalities should not give advice under these Acts of Parliament because they are so complicated. In my duties outside this House I touch one of the most complicated pieces of legislation which ever appeared on the Statute Book, and members of the legal profession by Statute are not allowed to touch it at any angle —I refer to the National Insurance Act. When they taunt laymen that they are not able to give advice on these laws let me add, that if all professional legal advice that is tendered was always correct I would agree; but in the case of workmen's compensation I often get legal advice in the negative from one solicitor and exactly the contrary advice
from another lawyer. Consequently, it is no use arguing that if you must have advice it must always be professional legal advice. Hon. and learned Members form I think the largest section of Members of this House. There is a sort of subtle freemasonry about the legal profession, and an hon. and learned Member from this side has to-day joined his colleagues in seeing that the legal profession is safeguarded.
What I really wanted was to ask the Minister of Health if he will tell us whether, under this Clause, the Law Officers of the Crown will draft a circular to be issued to local authorities telling them exactly what they are able to do under its provisions. That is a very important point, because I can see local authorities finding great difficulty in knowing exactly what it can give by way of information and particulars. I want to ask the Minister of Health to be good enough to answer that question. One of the problems which confronts the community under a Bill of this kind after all is the amount of rent they have to pay for decontrolled houses. Let me give one or two particulars regarding the City of Manchester. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a local authority, having such information as I am about to give, in their possession, will be able to publish it broadcast in order to expose some of the depredations of landlords who are doing the sort of thing I propose to describe. There is the case of a person who takes charge of 22 old houses—in this case a woman—which she rents from the owners and pays them £18 10s. per week. She receives from the tenants of these 22 houses £53 1s. 2d. per week in rent, or a difference of about £35 per week. The number of families in these 22 houses is 124. I feel sure that the suggestion I am going to make will appeal to all hon Members, and it is that a local authority ought to be empowered to placard on the doors of this property exactly what these rack-renters are doing in exploiting the tenants.
Take another example. Another person takes the rent of 18 houses and the total weekly amount paid to the owners of the property is £14 10s. The rent received, however, is £42 7s. 6d. a week, a difference of about £28. Surely that is
a monstrous state of affairs; and it happens not only in the city of Manchester, but in all the big towns of the country. Let me give figures which have been collected by the corporation of Manchester itself; they are not the result of my own investigations, but of investigations conducted by the city's public health committee, into 448 houses. The total weekly rent paid was £450; but the total weekly rent received was £897 and the number of families housed was 7,965. We have been told that a local authority will not be entitled to give information or particulars in individual cases. I want to know, therefore, whether a local authority under this Clause, once it has secured information like that which I have cited, will be entitled to broadcast it in order to expose what is being done. I have asked two specific questions of the Minister of Health. Will he tell us whether the Law Officers of the Crown will take it upon themselves, in conjunction with his Department, to draft a circular and issue it to local authorities informing them exactly what they can do under this Clause? Secondly, whether in such cases of exploitation as I have given the local authority will be able to broadcast the information in order to cleanse our cities of such monstrous things?

5.54 p.m.

Mrs. TATE: I am afraid that as the Clause stands it is liable in one respect to be ineffective. The Marley Committee recommended the giving of advice; and hon. and learned Members have made it perfectly clear that the giving of advice might be a danger to the tenants where it says they shall have power to publish the information. That is a very vague term. To publish information might merely mean the printing of a paper which might be hung on the wall. I ask the Minister between now and Report to consider inserting words giving information as to what is requested instead of merely publishing information.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We are all much disappointed with the Minister of Health this afternoon. We really expected that we should be able to convince him how essential it was to empower all local authorities to be able to give advice, and we hoped to be able to do so because of our experience, a very bitter experience in dealing with poor tenants.
We want them to be in the position of being able to know the law regarding the decontrol of houses. This is a very vexed question, and a very serious question; and I implore the Minister of Health to consult the Lord Advocate on this matter. In my own constituency in one street of Dalmuir, Dunn Street, there are houses owned by the Beardmore firm. They are all built on the same pattern, street after street, but on one side of Dunn Street the Beardmore firm still retains the factor and the rents remain the same; but on the other side of the street the houses are in charge of a Glasgow firm of solicitors, who have raised the rents by 3s. 6d. per week, a 20 per cent. increase. This is a serious matter. They cannot do it; it is against the law. But the working classes do not know the law until they come to a man like myself, or some other public representative. I have given 10 years of my life to defending the poor in the West of Scotland against rapacious factors. I ask the Minister of Health to consult the Lord Advocate regarding this matter in order that something might be done to protect the poorest of the poor against factors who take advantage of their simplicity.
There is another matter about which poor tenants know nothing, and that is that when a local authority has condemned a house as being unfit for human habitation the tenant need not pay rent until the owner makes the house fit for human habitation. If the owner does not conform to the law in this matter, the tenant is required to pay no rent. But, again, the tenant knows nothing about that. The next thing is that the factor or the owner of the house cannot put anyone out of the house whether that tenant pays rent or not. They must take the tenant to the Sheriff Court in Scotland. There is only one individual in Scotland who can pub anyone out of a house, and that is the sheriff. But the tenants in Scotland do not know that. When the factor comes along and threatens them that if they do not pay the rent at once, no matter how much the arrears are, they will be evicted, they think they will be put out. The poor tenant then does all manner of things in order to try to meet the demands made on him. But the factor has not got the power to evict. He has to take the tenant to the Sheriff Court.
It would be invaluable to the tenants in Scotland if they knew the facts. They ought to know that when they are summoned to the court they should go to the courts. Invariably the workers are terrified at the idea of being summoned before a court of justice. They think they have committed a crime and they fear being classified as criminals. Therefore they do not go. I want the Minister of Health to let them know that they should go to the court, because if they do not go the sheriff has no alternative but to give the factor a decree, and that means that he is handing to the factor the right to evict that tenant. Invariably it is the wife who goes to the court and who has to deal with the factor. If she goes to the court the sheriff in every case takes into consideration the ability of the tenant to pay, and he then says that a certain amount of the rent has to be paid. Again I want the tenant to know that as soon as the sheriff gives that decision the factor ceases to have the power to evict, whether the tenant pays anything again or not. The factor or the owner must take the tenant back again to the court, if necessary, and if it is a hard case, where the folk are right up against it, the sheriff will not give a decree. I have known tenants go back to the court as many as three times.
It is these things that I want the Minister of Health to make known. I want him to make the local authorities responsible for imparting that information. What is the use of making a law, what is the use of these directions being in an Act of Parliament td give protection to tenants, if the tenants do not know of them? We are asking the Government to-day to practise what they preach. But we cannot get them to move. I hope the Minister will listen to our appeal. Has he seen a rent court? It is quite impossible for the poor man's lawyer, particularly in the big industrial centres, to take up all this work. I speak authoritatively for the Dumbartonshire Court and the Rent Court in Glasgow, where I have defended more people than all the lawyers in Glasgow put together, and I am not a lawyer. I got a locus standi from Sheriff Lee to defend the poor people against the factors in 1920, because there were hundreds of tenants coming every day to the court, and they were all poor people. My own friends gave me legal advice and showed me how to get
round a difficult situation. It was quite impossible that they could stop their own business and go into the rent court day after day, because the work called for someone who had nothing else to do. Here is an opportunity presenting itself to the Minister of Health. We want him to broadcast this information to everyone free, for those folk who require it most are not in a position to pay for any advice.

6.6 p.m.

Miss CAZALET: I would like to support the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), and to appeal to the Minister and his Department to issue a Circular explaining in the simplest possible way the meaning of the various Acts and the duties of tenants, subtenants and landlords in this matter. I realise that this Clause is permissive and that local authorities may issue the information. I think we are generally agreed that most local authorities will probably do so, but there may be others who may not assume this particular responsibility. It would be an enormous advantage if there could be a uniform basis of information given to all local authorities, and that could only be issued by the Minister of Health. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and the Under Secretary would themselves undertake this particular duty and not leave it to any lawyers. It has frequently been said that it is quite impossible to make these Acts simple, but I think that the Minister has shown by his speeches on many occasions in this House, as has the Parliamentary Secretary, that he is able to make these things so clear that all can comprehend them. The publication of such information would meet a very real need. I suggest that the Department issue a uniform circular or pamphlet on the meaning of the whole of these Acts in relation to the duties of tenants, sub-tenants and landlords.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Reference has been made by more than one speaker on the other side to the difficulties of the tenant, and the need for the tenant to receive advice and information from the local authorities. Unfortunately it does not matter how far the Legislature
or the local authorities go, for there are large numbers of people who do not seem to pay any attention to anything that is brought to their noice. The Legislature in the past has had to deal with similar problems, so as to safeguard the interests of tenants. Reference has been made to forms of notice served on tenants. There is the form provided by the Act of 1920. It was made mandatory for landlords or their agents, when demanding an increase of rent, to serve a form of notice on the tenant. It had either to be the exact form in the Schedule to the Act or a form in all respects similar. Any notice of increase of rent which did not contain this form was absolutely bad, and there was no necessity for tenants to pay the increased rent. The form was in these words:
At any time, not less than three months after the day of you are entitled to apply to the county court for an order suspending the increase of rent … if you consider that the premises are not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation, or otherwise not in a reasonable state of repair. You will be required to satisfy the county court, by a report from the sanitary authority or otherwise, that your application was well founded, and for this purpose you are entitled to apply to the sanitary authority for a certificate. A fee of 1s. is chargeable on any application for a certificate, but if the certificate is granted you can deduct this sum from your rent.
If a certificate was obtained that the house was not in a fit condition, the tenant was relieved from any increase of rent. The Ministry may have the information, and, if so, it would be interesting to know to what extent this Provision has been made use of by tenants. I have had considerable experience of cases in court, and I am satisfied that, so far as that provision for the obtaining of a certificate is concerned, in a large number of areas it is practically a dead letter. It is no good complaining in this House, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has complained, that tenants are ignorant. In the Act of 1920 the Legislature did everything in its power to enable tenants to be fully acquainted with their rights, and we cannot blame Parliament or the local authorities or the courts if tenants do not avail themselves of the rights which they possess.
I trust that when this Bill becomes law the Minister will take some action with
the view of bringing to the notice of local authorities their power under this Clause. Of course they have an option in the Bill, whether they exercise it or not, but I think it would facilitate the decision of local authorities if the Minister, with the advice of the Law Officers, drew up a circular indicating what the tenants' rights are. There should be some general form of information as to the purport not merely of this Bill but of the principal Acts. There is also the possibility, in many cases, that local authorities may find it desirable to add to any publication or circular, information relating more particularly to their own localities. What we are really anxious to ensure is that tenants should be in a position to get the fullest information in the shortest possible space.

6.16 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I rise to reply to the questions which have been addressed to me in the course of this Debate. First, let me deal with the question put by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) as to the use which has been made by tenants of the provision in regard to obtaining a certificate. I am afraid I cannot give him any statistical information upon that point because no such statistics are collected or preserved. But my own experience of the conditions to which the hon. Member refers, is that surprisingly small use has been made of that provision, and it is eminently desirable that the new machinery, which we are now calling into being, for the purpose of informing tenants of the law should achieve the result of making them more active in maintaining their rights.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) put a question as regards certain conditions in Manchester. It appears to me that the reply to the hon. Member is this. It may be that a law is being broken and that the law which is being broken is one for which the local authority are responsible. In that case it is their duty to enforce the law, under whatever Section is being broken. Or, it may be that the law is being broken in a manner for which the local authority is not responsible, but, since they are the housing authority, it would be their duty in that case to call the matter to the attention of whatever authority is responsible for enforcing the Jaw. Or, it may be, in the third alternative, that no law is being broken, and,
if no law is being broken, I cannot suppose that the local authority would consider it judicious or even legitimate under this or any provision to carry on public propaganda against persons not breaking the law. Of course, I do not know what the conditions are.
As regards the suggestion made by the hon. Lady the Member for West Willesden (Mrs. Tate), that certain words should be added to the effect that this information should be provided "as and when requested" I will certainly give as careful consideration to that as I would to any other suggestion coming from the same quarter. My first impression of the words, however, is that they do not add anything to the Clause. Indeed, I rather fear that they might have a restricting instead of a broadening effect on the power conferred by the Clause. That, as I say, is my first impression, but I will give further consideration to the hon. Lady's suggestion. The only remaining suggestions concern the preparation of the circular and in regard to that matter two quite different suggestions have been made. The hon. Member for Westhoughton suggested that the circular should describe to local authorities what they can do under the Clause. I do not believe that to be necessary. I think that, as distinguished from some other Clauses in Rent Restrictions legislation, this Clause is singlarly simple and direct and its meaning will be quite clear to local authorities.
Then there was the suggestion of the hon. Lady the Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet) supported by the hon. Member for Flint that there should be a general circular describing the meaning of the various Acts. That is no new idea. The possibility of rendering assistance to local authorities in such a manner as that is always present to my mind and the minds of the officials at the Ministry of Health. Nothing is more frequently mentioned at conferences with local authorities. We constantly ask, "Is there any help that we can give by way of explanation of these difficult Acts?" My present information upon the matter is that the local authorities know as much about it, through their excellent advisers, as anybody else and are not in need of information or assistance on the matter from anybody. They have been so closely in touch with the day-to-day administration, that their legal advisers and techni-
cal advisers have had to make themselves experts in the provisions of the various Rent Restrictions Acts.
My second point is this. When you sit down, as all of us who have been engaged in administration have probably done, to try to interpret difficult and complicated Statutes, dealing with a whole range of regulations such as this and when you try to put them into language such as would be of any use at all to the class of tenants we are now considering, then, if you share my experience, you find yourself running into the danger of doing more harm than good. You run into the danger of misrepresenting to the people their real rights by trying to express those rights in a simple manner. I have known great harm done by attempting to state in popular language legal relations which are only capable of being stated in refined legal terms. My present frame of mind on the subject is that it is really safer and better for the tenants, with their ignorance of the law, that they should have these matters explained by their own friends and advisers, rather than that they should try to pick them up from formal circulars. As I say, that is my present frame of mind, but I am always on the lookout, in consultation with the local authorities, for opportunities of assisting them by clarifications of the sort to which reference has been made. I believe that we leave this Clause stronger than we found it, because it is more workable. I am encouraged to believe that it has been wise to omit the words "and advice" by observing from some speeches, that if we had not done so, pressure would inevitably have been put upon the local authorities to try to act as a kind of common agents for landlords and tenants, a function which it would be absolutely impossible for them to perform.

6.23 p.m.

Captain CAZALET: The Minister referred to the suggestion of the hon. Lady the Member for West Willesden (Mrs. Tate) as to the inclusion of the words "as and when required," but the right hon. 'Gentleman did not say anything about the substitution of the word "give" for the word "publish" in regard to this information, which the hon. Lady also suggested. I understood that her point was as to whether the word "publish" covered the giving of oral in-
formation. Some of the authorities to which reference has been made, have already set up committees. These committees interview applicants and give information, though I will not say advice. One of the objects of the Clause was to legalise the position of those local authorities who have already set up such committees and are now giving oral information. The Minister proposes to insert the words "furnish particulars" but that is not in relation to giving assistance as between landlords and tenants. That only relates to limited information as regards availability extent and character of alternative accommodation and does not touch the question of the rights of the tenant, the sub-tenant or the landlord as regards rent. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would consider putting forward some Amendment on the Report stage which would clarify the position and the rights of those committees and also what is included in the word "publish."

6.24 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I included the word "give" in what I said about the further words "as and when requested," suggested by the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mrs. Tate). As at present advised, I believe it to be true, that the effect of substituting "give" for "publish" and of adding "as and when requested," if it had any effect at all on the Clause, would be more likely to limit than to broaden this power. That would be precisely contrary to the intention of the hon. Members who have raised the matter. From the point of view of a lawyer interpreting the power given under this Clause, the word "publish" has a much wider application—because it includes all the various methods by which a fact can be published—than any other word which occurs to one. "Publication" is not a term of art and is not confined to publication in writing. You can publish by other methods than writing.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I wish to support the suggestion made by the hon. Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet) and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I do so because of the Minister's own statement that this Clause is an improvement upon previous Rent Restrictions legislation. The Act of 1923
was an improvement on the Act of 1920, and, through the whole period of these Acts, there has never been a suggestion of restricting or toning down the rights of the tenant or the obligations of the landlord. But I think every hon. Member will agree that the intention of Parliament has been avoided, owing to lack of knowledge on the part of the tenant or lack of will on the part of the property-owner. The Minister states that our local authorities have experts who are expert not only in a practical sense but are experts in regard to this legislation. But many tenants have been paying 25 per cent. increase in rents for many years without having had the benefit which should have been forthcoming to them, in regard to the maintenance and repair of their homes. Presumably the Minister appreciates that fact, because Clause 7 of the Bill now establishes certain conditions for providing information of various kinds, for both landlord and tenant
I would like these committees to do more than provide information for the tenant who applies for it. I would like the sanitary inspector, having investigated the housing conditions in his area, to report to the committee on the condition of every house. Only then would it be possible for the tenant to obtain that to which he is entitled. In the Act of 1920 the words are quite clear as to the right of the tenant and the obligation of the landlord, but, unfortunately, so few tenants know anything about it, that the tenants generally are not likely to secure the benefit conceded to them by that law. I wish to read what transpired in one town in this country after the passing of the 1920 Act, where a local authority had the will and the determination to give effect to all that the Parliament of 1920 intended. Here is an extract from the "Sanitary Record," dated 28th October, 1920, which illustrates the importance of the right information going to the tenant, or, alternatively, of the local authority carrying out their duties as they ought to, on behalf of the tenant:
The Mayor of Mansfield reported to the town council at its last meeting that the Housing Committee had made a thorough inspection of houses in the borough, and had considered the following list: (a) houses unfit for human habitation, not suitable for improvement, 716; (b) houses definitely below a reasonable standard, the condition of
which renders them unsuitable for improvement, 80; (c) houses definitely below a reasonable standard which might be improved, 171; (d) houses now unfit for habitation which might be made fit by structural alterations and improvements, 62; total, 1,029. The committee, he said, resolved that for the information of the county court a list of the houses under categories (a) and (b) be deposited with the court, and that when occasion arose action be taken under Section 2 (2) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Act, 1920. The list had been prepared for reference by the court.
If every authority in the country had taken similar steps to those taken by the Mansfield Town Council, it would have been well, because this is an obligation on the part of the sanitary authority as well as on the part of the tenant. If the sanitary authority discovers that the repairs to any property have not been faithfully carried out according to the terms of the law, it is as much the duty of that authority as it is of the tenant to insist before the Courts that the landlord should only receive the increase in rent for so long as the repairs have been faithfully carried out. Since that date the question when a house is fit for human habitation has had a fairly generous interpretation put upon it. I need not read to the Committee a full description of what is really intended by a house fit for human habitation, but one or two references might not be out of place. Such a house should be, according to the medical officer of health's own designation, free from serious damp, with satisfactory light and ventilation, properly drained, with adequate sanitary conveniences and with a sink and suitable arrangements for disposing of slop water, in good general repair, having a satisfactory water supply, adequate washing accommodation, adequate facilities for preparing and cooking food, and a well ventilated store for food.
It may very well be that the man-in-the-street suspects that his landlord has not been faithfully carrying out the law under the Act of 1920, but it is doubtful whether he will proceed to the County Court, without having full information and advice, to compel the landlord to put the house in a decent state of repair. I suggest, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman that if, as the hon. Members for Dumbarton and East Islington suggested, a circular was sent along to the local authorities embodying Clause 7, which is
transparently clear, but also embodying Section 2 (2) of the Rent Restriction Act, 1920, and calling upon the local authorities to do their part as sanitary authorities, a good deal of this difficulty would be finally removed.
It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the sanitary inspectors are experts. They may be technical experts in their own particular profession, but it is a different proposition altogether when they start to tackle a housing problem of this description if they have, say, four or five property owners who are members of the council to which they act as sanitary inspectors, and it seems to me that something more than advice to the tenant who asks for it is required. It is the sanitary authority which should be the active force under the terms of the Act of 1920 and subsequent Acts, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, having gone so far as to embody Clause 7 in this Bill, which is a further recognition of the failure of the law in the past, he might take the next step and issue a leaflet, and, if he does not feel disposed to instruct local authorities, he might use what influence he can bring to bear upon them and see to it that sanitary authorities carry out their part of the 1920 and 1923 legislation.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. EASTWOOD: I would like to ask whether it is possible for the Minister to safeguard the ratepayers against any abuse of the powers conferred by this Clause? After all, these powers, permissive though they may be, are very extensive, and it is extremely difficult for anyone to say what is advice and what is merely information. Quite obviously, in practice what one may call information may very easily develop, as it does now in many cases, into advice. If one has a local authority which decides to take the fullest advantage of this power, I suggest to the Minister that it will be possible for that local authority in fact to establish a new department, probably with one or two clerks who would have to be paid, and possibly with several co-opted members of the committee, some if not all of whom would want their expenses paid. The thing that I visualise, obviously only occasionally, because most of the local authorities do their jobs perfectly well, is that there may be a local
authority which attempts to run riot under the powers conferred by this Clause, and I hope the Minister will see if it is possible to exercise some restraining influence in case such a thing should arise.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: What strikes me as most surprising is connection with this Clause is the fact that it should be recognised in all quarters of the Committee as necessary. It seems to me a very sad reflection on the complexity and obscurity of our legislation. This afternoon we have a formidable galaxy of talent on the Treasury Bench—the Minister of Health, the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General, and, until recently, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health—and the combined efforts of those four hon. and right hon. Members is a Bill so complicated that the Minister of Health himself, standing at that Box earlier to-day, quoted with apparent approval the suggestion that if he put into the Bill powers to enable a local authority to give advice, it would be found in many cases, if they were taken into court, that the advice was wrong. Later he stressed the fact that these local authorities and their legal advisers are experts in these matters.
I wish to protest against the unnecessary complexity of these Acts. I know that this subject is one of difficulty, and that it cannot be set out in a few sentences, but I cannot believe that it is necessary for the legislation to be as complex as it is, and in particular I would point out how greatly it adds to the difficulty of comprehending the law on different points in such a matter as this, if you have to refer back to other Acts which are partially but not wholly repealed. I cannot help thinking that this Clause would not have been necessary at all if the Minister had presented us with a Bill which repealed the earlier Acts on the subject in toto, and gave us a codified and amended Measure. In this country everyone is expected to know the law, and I think that Ministers, and not only in this case, ought to make that task much easier than they do.

Clause 8 (Regulations) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Application to Scotland.)

6.40 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 9, line 8, to leave out the word "thirty-eight," and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-nine."
I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland has on the Paper an Amendment to substitute November for September, but our Amendment is to substitute the 28th May, 1939, for the 28th May, 1938. Our reason is that we think that in Scotland at least we ought to receive this extra period before the law begins to operate. We find that this Clause applies a month or so earlier than in England, and we desire that in Scotland the 28th May, 1939, should be the date, as we think it is wrong to bring the date forward. The Secretary of State for Scotland to some extent alters the Bill by his Amendment, but we would prefer our proposed date. I do not claim more for Scotland than for the rest of the country, but the position in parts of Scotland with regard to housing has generally been recognised as more acute than in any other part of the country. I am not one of those who claim either for Scotsmen or for representatives of Scotland any privilege at all. I think that Scotland ought to make out a case for any benefit for which she asks, and I would mention that in all the Housing Acts Scotland has been accepted as being in a different position from the rest of the country to this extent, that a subsidy has been retained in Scotland when it has been abolished elsewhere. We think that while you may be abolishing decontrol in another part of the country, at least in Scotland a longer period ought to be given before decontrol has to operate.

6.44 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): I think my hon. Friend has confused, not unnaturally, two matters that are really quite distinct. I say not unnaturally, because it is very difficult to keep these matters clearly compartmented in one's mind. The 1938 which is referred to in the application Clause under paragraph (b) comes in as follows:
for any reference to the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, there shall be substituted a reference to the twenty-eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight.
That immediately refers back to Clause 1, which states that the Act shall continue in force until 24th June, 1938. The question that is raised in the issue between 1938 and 1939 is the continuance of the Acts. As regards that question, apart from the decontrol of particular classes of houses, the position is that under Clause 1 of the Bill the Acts are to cease to apply on 24th June, 1938. For Scotland we have taken the corresponding term day, which is 28th May, 1938. If we were to substitute in Scotland 1939 for 1938, the result would be that in Scotland the Acts would be continuing for one year longer than in England. I do not think that that would be an advantage for Scotland. In fixing a date in 1938, the Government were taking a period of five years from 1933, regarding that as a fair test period to take.
Within five years we may have a housing activity and development that will enable decontrol to be carried further. On the other hand, we may have within five years a situation which will show that we must continue control even beyond five years, or, as an alternative, that we must tighten up control. Accordingly, the date we take is really the date at which the law regarding the whole question of control will come under review. It is not necessarily a final date. It would be final, of course, if the matter stood without any further legislation. The position will be that towards the termination of the period the whole question will come under consideration, and if 1939 were inserted for Scotland it would mean that as regards Scotland consideration would be deferred a year longer than the consideration with regard to England. I think that that would be a misfortune. The matter as regards Scotland should be reviewed at the same time as the position in England is reviewed.

Mr. JOHN: What about Wales?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I cannot speak for Wales, but I should think that there is no question, whether the Acts come to an end in 1938 or are carried over, that Wales is in the same position as England and Scotland. In view of what I have said, I will ask the hon. Member not to press his Amendment. I
would rather deal with the other point which he raised on the Amendment which I shall move later.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not think the Lord Advocate has met my point at all. The point I wish to stress is that this Bill differs from any other that I can recall in that the words are added, "and no longer." All other Acts that I know merely state that they shall run to a certain date. The Government are definitely intending to end this Bill in 1938 for they add, "and no longer." There is no question of reviewing the position. If they wanted to do that they could do it under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. With the wards, "and no longer," however, that cannot be done, and the consequence is that review is not meant, in this case. It may well be that some other Government will take the place of this one; that is to be determined by future events; but, being a realist, I take facts as they are, and I take it that this Government might continue. Therefore I want 12 months longer for Scotland. In all our Housing Acts, Scotland has been put in a different position from other parts of the country. The Government and the House have accepted that principle. In Scotland we have an increased subsidy, and it is continuing when the subsidy is abolished in other parts of the country.
The Marley Committee picked out the Scottish problem as being different from that in any other parts of the country. I am not arguing that it is so, but I am arguing that the House of Commons has constantly accepted that principle, and in pursuance of that this Bill ought to run a year longer in Scotland. Glasgow stands out in the whole of Britain for the record number of people who are evicted from their homes because of the housing conditions. It is because of such conditions, and not because we claim a privilege for Scotland, that we ask for this extension. Even in this Bill Scotland is put on the same level as the

Metropolitan area in regard to the level of rent; again accepting the principle that it is different in housing matters. That difference has been accepted also in regard to steel houses and in other directions. I am sorry that Scotland is in that position, and we should be glad if we had not to plead that Scotland should be put in a different position. The more I live the less pro-Scottish I am becoming. Scotland is in a shocking position with regard to housing, and therefore I hope that the Committee will support us in desiring this extra year.

6.54 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member has pointed out quite clearly that the language of Clause 1 rather points to an intention finally to terminate these Acts. That is a perfectly fair matter of construction, because the words are "and no longer," which may not be very common words in this type of legislation. It would be wrong to suggest that the Government do not contemplate such a development as may render further control unnecessary. Insertion of the words "and no longer" in the Bill does not affect the competence of Parliament to deal with the situation. Accordingly, a period of five years has been taken and is a reasonable period. I cannot see that there is any particular virtue in six years as against five. The hon. Member might say that he wants to safeguard the position as far as he can, but if the situation is that five years hence we shall have five years' experience of the working of this Bill, it does not seem to me unreasonable that the position of the two countries should be considered together, provided that there is a situation which calls for review. If there is no such situation, there will be no review; on the other hand, if there is a situation which calls for review, it is desirable that the position of both countries should be considered together.

Question put, "That the word 'thirty-eight' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 58.

Division No. 142.]
AYES.
[6.58 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Apsley, Lord
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Aske, Sir Robert William
Balniel, Lord


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Baillie, Sir Adrian w. M.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Potter, John


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Harbord, Arthur
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Hartland, George A.
Pybus, Percy John


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Blindell, James
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Borodale, Viscount
Hellgers, Captain P, F. A.
Ray, Sir William


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Bracken, Brendan
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Alton)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillisborough)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Robinson, John Roland


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hurd, Sir Percy
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Browne, Captain A. C.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burnett, John George
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Butler, Richard Austen
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Campbell, vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Carver, Major William H.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Salt, Edward W.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Leckie, J. A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Clarke, Frank
Lees-Jones, John
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Selley, Harry R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lewis, Oswald
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Liddall, Walter S.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Conant, R. J. E.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Cooper, A. Duff
Llewellin, Major John J.
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cranborne, Viscount
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lymington, Viscount
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
McKie, John Hamilton
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mapnay, Thomas
Stevenson, James


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Maitland, Adam
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Doran, Edward
Manningnam-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Drewe, Cedric
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strauss, Edward A.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dunglass, Lord
Martin, Thomas B.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Eales, John Frederick
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Eastwood, John Francis
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Summersby, Charles H.


Edge, Sir William
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Milne, Charles
Tate, Mavis Constance


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Thompson, Luke


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Fox, Sir Gilford
Moreing, Adrian C.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Fraser, Captain Ian
Morgan, Robert H.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wickon-T.)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Train, John


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ganzoni, Sir John
Moss, Captain H. J.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Munro, Patrick
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Goldie, Noel B.
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
North, Captain Edward T.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Gower, Sir Robert
O'Connor, Terence James
Weymouth, Viscount


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Ormiston, Thomas
Whyte, Jardine Belt


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Greene, William P. C.
Owen, Major Goronwy
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Palmer, Francis Noel
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Patrick, Colin M.
Wilton, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Pearson, William G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peat, Charles U.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Gay, J. C. Morrison
Percy, Lord Eustace
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Perkins, Walter H. D.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Hales, Harold K.
Petherick, M.



Hanbury, Cecil
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hanley, Dennis A.
Pike, Cecil F.
Sir George Penny and Mr. Womersley.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Bernays, Robert
Cowan, D. M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Briant, Frank
Cripps, Sir Stafford


Banfield, John William
Cape, Thomas
Curry, A. C.




Daggar, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Milner, Major James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jenkins, Sir William
Nathan, Major H. L.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
John, William
Parkinson, John Allen


Dobbie, William
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Price, Gabriel


Edwards, Charles
Jones, J. J. (Watt Ham, Silvertown)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rea, Walter Russell


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Kirkwood, David
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lawson, John James
Thorne, William James


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Tinker, John Joseph


Groves, Thomas E.
Logan, David Gilbert
Wallhead, Richard C.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Harris, Sir Percy
Mander, Geoffrey le M.



Hirst, George Henry
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.

7.7 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 9, line 8, at the end, to insert the words:
and for references to the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth days of September there shall be substituted, respectively, references to the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth days of November.
This Amendment has been put on the Paper to give effect to the undertaking given by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland at an earlier stage in the Committee—that we should substitute a date of decontrol for Scotland which would allow longer time than in England. In the provisions of the Bill the date of decontrol in England is 29th September, 1933, and what we propose to do by this Amendment is to make the date of decontrol in Scotland the Martinmas removal term, 1933. In Scotland we get the advantage of an extra two months.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It may be a source of pleasure that we are not going to divide against this proposed Amendment, but before it is discussed I should like to put one or two questions to the Lord Advocate which, I hope, with their usual courtesy either he, or the Solicitor-General for Scotland, will endeavour to answer. In all tenancies in Scotland, over a certain figure, we still have the missive system in operation. Hon. Members familiar with Scottish law will know that, up to a certain date, we had for all houses the missive system, which binds a tenant to his house for a period, roughly speaking, of 16 months at a time. By the passing of certain legislation all houses below £19 19s., or £20, per annum were exempt from the missive system. Above that figure the missive system still operated. Then came the legislation
which allowed increases of rent, and the missive system now applies to all houses above £27 per annum, and not to houses below that sum. If a house is above £27 per annum, the tenant or occupier must take the house at some date previous to the beginning of April. If he intends to re-take that house he must signify by 1st April to the owner of the house that he intends re-taking it for a further period. That binds him until 28th May of the following year.
As I read this Bill it applies to all houses which are £35 in England and £45 in Scotland, and, therefore, with regard to these houses of £45 in Scotland the control still continues to exist. The occupiers of such houses have entered into a legal contract to continue their occupancy of their houses at the old rate until 28th May. I want to ask the Lord Advocate whether this Bill will in any way alter a missive which has been signed between the occupier and owner of the property? If it does not, it means, in effect, that the people who have a missive system will carry on under this Act until May, 1939. I take it that the law cannot interfere in a contract which has been made. All these people under a missive system will sign a contract until May, 1939; therefore all the people above £27 under this Bill really come under my proposed Amendment, which has just been defeated, and the only people who do not come under that Amendment are the poorest people who are in the houses that are not so highly rented.
I should like the Lord Advocate to give me his opinion on two points. The first is whether this does or does not interfere with a contract; whether a person who has signed a missive remains under control until May, 1939; and
whether the people who do not pay their rates with their rent remain under control until May, 1939? He might also inform me whether this November date only affects those below that level. They are the poorer people and, therefore, we should have uniformity. The date in my proposed Amendment ought to have been accepted. It is not infrequent in tenancies on contract for people to sub-let their houses. Under this arrangement the landlord still holds the original signer of the missive to his bargain, but agrees to the sub-letting of the house to another tenant who, in turn, takes over the obligations of the person who has signed. I want to ask the Lord Advocate whether this Bill conflicts with the sub-letting of houses. When a person sub-lets his house, will that be taken as the breaking of a contract and allow the rent to be increased at once? Such subletting is not uncommon in Scotland, and I hope the Lord Advocate will clear up this point.

7.15 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member has quite properly raised the question of the effect of this Bill upon the missive system in Scotland. He stated accurately that in the case of houses above a certain rent, which may be taken as £26 or £27, the custom is to take the house upon a yearly let, which is constituted by a document called the missive, and be is naturally anxious to ascertain what effect the decontrol contemplated by the Bill will have upon these contracts. In so far as there is a subsisting contract, that cannot be affected in any way by the Bill. I do not want in any way to mislead the hon. Member or the Committee by the phrase "subsisting contract," and I think the best way to make it plain is to take a concrete illustration. Supposing that a few years ago a tenant took a house on a yearly missive at a rent of £50, the tenancy running from Whit Sunday of one year to Whit Sunday of the next year, and that since the date when he entered upon his tenancy he had remained on from year to year, receiving no notice to quit and receiving no notice of an increase of rent, which in law is equivalent to a notice to quit. There is no doubt at all that he would be staying on there under the original contract, or under an implied renewal of the original contract or to use the technical term of
our law under the original contract plus tacit relocation. In that case I can quite definitely give the hon. Member an assurance that the tenant's contractual rights are unaffected. There is no question at all about that. We have considered it in consultation since the hon. Member first raised it in the House.
Let me take a second case where we start with a missive and where the missive has been renewed from year to year, a fresh missive being signed. That, again, is a perfectly clear case, because there the tenant is on the basis of a contract and the contractual right is unaffected. Then comes the case in which the answer is not so favourable from the point of view of the hon. Member. That is the case where the tenant starts with a contract constituted by a missive and then, during the currency of the contract, towards the end of the first year, a notice to quit has been given or notice of an increase of rent, which in law is equivalent to a notice to quit. In that case there is no doubt that the legal contract is terminated, and where a tenant has remained on in such a case he remains on not in virtue of the contractual right but in virtue of the statutory right which he had under the Act. His tenancy in that case is not a contractual tenancy but has become purely and simply a statutory tenancy. I do not know to what percentage of cases that description may apply, but I should mislead the hon. Member if I were to say that such a tenant can remain on, because he cannot remain on. If the landlord chooses to put into operation the machinery of notice which has already been set up by this Bill decontrol would operate as from 28th November, 1933, subject to this: that the landlord would be bound, notwithstanding the date of decontrol, to give the statutory notice which the Committee have already provided for in an earlier Clause.
Therefore, my answer to the hon. Member is that we have to consider in each case whether there is a subsisting contract or not. If there is a contract which has not been varied, but has gone on from year to year, or has been renewed from year to year, the contractual right is unaffected. On the other hand, if it is a contract where there has been a notice to quit or some equivalent there is no longer a subsisting contract, but merely a statutory right. The remaining ques-
tion put to me by the hon. Member related to sub-letting. I am bound to say that it is extraordinarily difficult to answer that kind of question in the abstract, because so much depends upon the circumstances of the sub-letting. If, for example, it was a sub-letting with the full concurrence of the landlord, who knew all the circumstances, I think he would be barred from challenging the sublet in any way, and the sub-let in that case would be binding as against him. On the other hand, if there was a sub-let to which the landlord was neither directly nor indirectly a party, then, I think, the position would be that the sub-tenant's right would be no higher than the right of the tenant. He derives his right from the tenant, and in that case the measure of his rights is dependent upon the measure of the tenant's rights.

Amendment agreed to.

7.22 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, to leave out the words "section seven of."
This Amendment has to be read in conjunction with the Amendment which stands next on the Paper to leave out the said section and insert "section seven of this Act." The Committee will see that these Amendments are proposed in sub-clause (e), which relates to expenses incurred by a county or a town council. The effect of the Amendment is to make it plain beyond doubt that any expenses incurred under Clause 2, sub-section (3), which relates to the register of applications, or under Clause 7, sub-section (2), which relates to the provision for giving information, can be recovered by the authority by rate.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 28, leave out the words "the said section," and insert instead thereof the words "section seven of this Act."— [The Lord Advocate.]

7.24 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 9, line 30, to leave out the words "and occupiers in equal proportions."
Under the Clause as it now reads this rate can be charged to the owners and occupiers
in equal proportions as the council may determine.
We seek to place the cost of this on the owners entirely, the occupiers ceasing to be liable. The reason why this Clause differs from the English Clause is that our rating system in Scotland is on an entirely different basis. We have a system under which owners and occupiers pay the rates, and in this case we think the cost ought to be placed entirely on the owner, because in the great bulk of cases he is best able to afford it. We think also that in a great many cases the owners of property are the cause of this Clause having to be operated, and therefore we see no injustice in placing the cost on owners. There is also another point I wish to raise. The Clause says:
such rate payable by owners and occupiers in equal proportions as the council may determine.
I take that to mean that if this new service costs, say, a rate of 1d. in the £ a halfpenny rate will be levied on the owners and a halfpenny rate on the occupiers; or does it mean, when it speaks of
equal proportions as the council may determine,
that the council may divide the cost in proportion to the service rendered to the two sections of the community? We think the Clause should be free from any ambiguity and that the whole service should be paid by the owners entirely, as the necessity for the Clause has arisen through the owners.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Normand): As regards the apportionment of the expenditure incurred under the Act between the owner and the occupier, the course taken by the Government in the Bill is the ordinary course of procedure applied in almost all recent cases in Scotland. It is different in England, because I understand that in England the rates are solely borne by the occupier. In Scotland new rates are put equally on the owner and the occupier, and that is perfectly fair in the present case, because some of the provisions of the Bill are for the benefit of the owner, some for the benefit of the tenant and many for the benefit of both. Therefore, it is only just that the expenditure should be borne in equal proportions. The other point which was put by the hon. Member was as to the meaning of the phrase:
in equal proportions as the council may determine.
He suggests that it is ambiguous and that it should be reconsidered. It will be reconsidered. The meaning of the words,
shall be defrayed out of such rate as the Council may determine,
is that the council shall determine what the rate must be. It will vary directly, of course, according to the amount of the expenditure. If the phraseology is not sufficiently clear as it stands, we may perhaps give it further consideration.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I am afraid that we cannot accept the statement of the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland as satisfying us. The need for our Amendment still remains. I am glad that he is going to consider the phraseology of that minor point, and that may be the sub-

ject for adjustment later. While it is true that the expense of giving information to tenants will be defrayed by occupiers and owners, the whole purpose of the Bill is to give benefits to owners. Since they will probably get all the advantages of the Bill, we certainly think that they should be liable to pay the whole of whatever rate may be involved in the expense of letting tenants know their position under the Bill. I am afraid that we must insist upon carrying our Amendment to a Division.

Question put, "That, the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 43.

Division No. 143.]
AYES.
[7.32 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Holdsworth, Herbert


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Doran, Edward
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Drewe, Cedric
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopoid C. M. S.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Duggan, Hubert John
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Dunglass, Lord
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Apsley, Lord
Eales, John Frederick
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Aske, Sir Robert William
Eastwood, John Francis
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Edge, Sir William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Atkinson, Cyril
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Knebworth, Viscount


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Balniel, Lord
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Leckie, J. A.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lees-Jones, John


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lewis, Oswald


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Liddall, Walter S.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Ganzoni, Sir John
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Blindell, James
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Llewellin, Major John J.


Borodale, Viscount
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Boyce, H. Leslie
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Bracken, Brendan
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Goff, Sir Park
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Goldie, Noel B.
McKie, John Hamilton


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gower, Sir Robert
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Magnay, Thomas


Browne, Captain A. C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Maitland, Adam


Burghley, Lord
Greene, William P. C.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Burnett, John George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. Joan
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Martin, Thomas B.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Carver, Major William H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Castlereagh, Viscount
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Milne, Charles


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd A Chisw'k)


Clarke, Frank
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hales, Harold K.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Moreing, Adrian C.


Conant, R. J. E.
Hanbury, Cecil
Morgan, Robert H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hanley, Dennis A.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moss, Captain H. J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Harbord, Arthur
Muirhead, Major A. J,


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hartland, George A.
Munro, Patrick


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Croom-Johnson, R. P,
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


North, Captain Edward T.
Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


O'Connor, Terence James
Runge, Noran Cecil
Summersby, Charles H.


Ormiston, Thomas
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Palmer, Francis Noel
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Thompson, Luke


Pearson, William G.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Peat, Charles U.
Salt, Edward W.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Percy, Lord Eustace
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Train, John


Petherick, M.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Peto, Sir Basil E, (Devon, Barnstaple.)
Scone, Lord
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Selley, Harry R.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Potter, John
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G, H.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Pybus, Percy John
Shute, Colonel J. J.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Warrender, Sir victor A. G.


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wells, Sydney Richard


Rathbone, Eleanor
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Weymouth, Viscount


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ray, Sir William
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Rea, Walter Russell
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Remer, John R.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)



Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Stevenson, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Robinson, John Roland
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Sir George Penny and Mr. Womersley.


Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Stourton, Hon. John J.



Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Strauss, Edward A.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
McGovern, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Briant, Frank
Hirst, George Henry
Maxton, James


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Milner, Major James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William
Parkinson, John Allen


Daggar, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Price, Gabriel


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Dobbie, William
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William



Groves, Thomas E.
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Wallhead and Mr. Buchanan.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Rill," put, and agreed to.

7.42 p.m.

Commander COCHRANE: I beg to move, in page 9, line 38, at the end, to add the words:
(g) in making Regulations under Section eight of this Act, the Secretary of State shall direct that every landlord of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies shall at least once in each year give to the tenant of such dwelling-house a notice, in such form and manner as the Secretary of State may provide, showing the total amount of owner's rates, the total amount of occupier's rates, and the total amount of owner's and occupier's rates combined, payable in respect of the said dwelling-house for the current year.
The reason for this proposal lies in the complexity of our Scottish rating system. I will briefly explain my point by taking an actual example. Let us consider the case of a house with a rateable value of £26 5s., in a district where the rate payable by the owner is 5s. in the pound and by the occupier 7s. in the pound. The owner would pay £6 5s. in rates, and would receive an actual net
rent of £20. The occupier would pay £9 2s. in rates, the result being that the rent would be £20, and the local authority would receive £15 7s. in rates on the house. Those figures are not to be arrived at by a simple calculation. Information should be within the knowledge of all tenants as to the proportion which goes to the landlord and the proportion which goes to the local authority, out of the amount which they pay. This Amendment proposes that that information should be made available as the result of statutory regulations. I confess that I am not very much in favour of that method of procedure. I hope that the Minister will agree that the balance of advantage lies on the side of making this information definitely available to tenants.

7.44 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Perhaps I should say at once that while we understand the intention which the hon. and
gallant Gentleman has in view in moving this Amendment, we are unable to accept it. The intention is that the tenant shall be informed as to the amount of rates which the landlord has to pay. If a landlord desires to give that information he can do so, and there is nothing in the existing law to prevent him. It seems to us that it is carrying matters too far to make it a statutory requirement that every landlord is to be directed at least once a year, taking the words of the Amendment, to give a notice. There are plenty of notices already in connection with this kind of legislation, and the Government think it would be unreasonable that a further burden in the matter of notice should be placed upon the landlord. I regret, therefore, that we are unable to accept the Amendment, and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not press it to a Division.

Amendment negatived.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. STEVENSON: I beg to move, in page 9, line 38, at the end, to add the words:
(g)—(1) The principal Acts shall have effect in relation to a mortgage secured over property comprising one or more dwelling-houses to which the principal Acts shall have ceased to apply by virtue of the provisions of this Act till the arrival of the first term of Whitsunday or Martinmas succeeding the said period of six months next after the passing of this Act;
(2) During the period of five years succeeding the above-mentioned term, the sheriff court may, on the application of the landlord, make an order restraining the mortgagee from calling in his mortgage or taking steps for enforcing his security or for recovering the principal money thereby secured, if it is satisfied that such calling in, enforcement, or recovery would cause greater hardship to the landlord than the mortgagee. The sheriff court may, on the application of the mortgagee or landlord, rescind or vary any order so made if satisfied that by reason of any material change in circumstances the rescission or variation is necessary or proper;
(3) The restrictions imposed on a mortgagee by an order under this Section may be imposed subject to such conditions as regards instalments of principal, increase of interest, or otherwise and for such time as appears to the court to be proper, but so nevertheless that the restrictions shall cease to be operative if at any time after the making of the order—

(a) interest is more than twenty-one days in arrear; or
(b) any covenant by the mortgagor (other than the covenant for the repayment of the principal money secured) is broken or not performed; or
2450
(c) the mortgagor fails to keep the property in a proper state of repair or to pay the interest and instalments of principal recoverable under any prior encumbrance; or
(d) any conditions imposed by the court upon the mortgagor are not carried out.
(4) This Section shall not apply to a mortgage where the principal money secured thereby is repayable by means of periodical instalments extending over a term of not less than ten years from the creation of the mortgage.
The purpose of my hon. Friends and myself, in putting down this Amendment, is twofold. In the first place, we anticipate that, in the event of a large number of mortgages being called in at one time, there will be a considerable dislocation of the property market, because we theorise that a great number of the landlords are quite unable to meet those mortgages at the present time. Our second purpose is to obviate a hardship which in all probability will fall upon certain of the owners of the properties on which these mortgages exist. Where a landlord has considerable means, or any means at all over and above his property, no difficulty should arise, for such a person can quite easily meet his mortgage without any trouble; but I would ask the Committee to remember that in Scotland a large number of people of very small means invest what means they have in heritable property. It is quite common for, say, a tradesman in a comparatively small way, and for others of comparatively small means, to purchase property, on which they can always get a bond or mortgage to the extent of at least two-thirds of its value, and then gradually to pay off the debt. It is quite common for that means to be adopted in Scotland by a person who is building up a small provision for himself in his old age, or for his widow in the event of his death.
Many tenements in Scotland, and particularly tenements which comprise or contain dwellings of the smaller class, are owned at present by people who have no other means, or who have very little means other than the property. When one considers the position of the property market, and the difficulties of all property owners ever since the Rent Restrictions Acts have been in force, one realises, first, the great difficulty which the owner has had in reducing his mortgage, and, secondly, the fact that there has been undoubtedly considerable depreciation
in all Scottish property in the period during which the Acts have been in force; and we feel that, if the mortgagees or bondholders were to take any steps, and particularly if a great number took steps all at one time, the borrower, that is to say the landlord, would not be in a position to repay his loan. In many instances the value of the property has been reduced below the loan, and in others, although it has not been reduced, perhaps, below the loan, it has been reduced to such an extent that the loan cannot be replaced. We are afraid, therefore, that in that case no other steps will be available to the lender to recover his money than to enter into possession and sell the property. If that happens in a great number of instances, the property market will be flooded, the value of the property will be further depreciated, and great loss will fall upon both the bondholder or mortgagee and the owner of the property.
Let us consider the position of the lender. There is no doubt that certain lenders also are suffering hardship by not being able to recover their money. I am sure that many a person who has money out on security in Scotland desires that money for the purpose of keeping his business going, if not of extending it, and there is a great number of other cases in which the lenders will be forced to enter into possession and recover what they can. Bonds have always been considered in Scotland to be a good security, and a great amount of trust money has from time to time been invested in these properties. Many of these trusts, owing to the terms of the Rent Restrictions Acts, have been unable to ingather their bonds, and they are waiting until the Acts expire before they can distribute their estates. When the provisions affecting the property over which the bond exists expire, they will be more or less bound in law to recover as much as they possibly can from the property owner, and, if need be, enter into possession and sell him up. In these circumstances, we can see that, when the Acts terminate, there will be a certain hardship both on the borrower and on the lender.
In the first paragraph of our Amendment we suggest that bonds shall not be repayable until the first term of
Whitsunday or Martinmas succeeding the period of six months after the passing of the Act. We take the periods of Whitsunday and Martinmas because, in fact, these are the terms when very nearly all heritable transactions are settled in Scotland; but we say that if, during that period, a lender has called up his bond, then the landlord shall be entitled to ask the sheriff to continue the restriction which now exists for a period not exceeding five years. We further provide that the sheriff, in considering whether he will do so or not, is to take the whole of the circumstances, both of the borrower and of the lender, into consideration, and to do what he thinks is best in the circumstances. He may continue the restriction against calling up the bond subject to such conditions as he may think fit, as, for instance, the payment of an annual instalment for a certain number of years; and, of course, it would be a condition of any such Order being pronounced by the sheriff that the borrower shall implement all the various terms of the original contract of mortgage.
We feel that, in the present circumstances of difficulty, where there might be hardships, it is right that these powers should be entrusted to the sheriff, and, if that were done, we are satisfied that it would in all probability prevent flooding of the property market, with depreciation of the value of the property and consequent loss, not only to the landlord, but also to the lender. We put forward this proposal with considerable confidence, and we would ask the Government to remember that we are doing here, in almost identical words, very nearly the same as was done in the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1923. When that Act was passed, and it was contemplated that it would expire, special provision was made in very nearly the same terms as those of our Amendment. That was done for the reason that the Government of the day theorised that hardship would be entailed upon the property owner and the lender when these various Acts expired, and I should be interested to know why the Government have changed their view on that matter. There is one other point to which I should like to refer. During the course of many discussions and Amendments, where arguments have been put forward for modification or
alteration of the terms of the Bill, one has constantly heard the Minister and the Solicitor-General say that we must allow some elasticity, that we must allow the sheriff to decide what is right in these or those circumstances. We are just applying that principle, which has been so often the resource of the Government in refusing Amendments, and, for the reasons which I have given, I would ask the Committee to accept this one.

7.55 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: We have carefully considered this Amendment as it appears on the Paper, and we have also considered what my hon. and learned Friend has so clearly stated in regard to it. In the result, we are unable to accept it. Let me inform the Committee why. In the first place, if we were to accept it, the effect would be that you would have in Scotland control of all mortgages, or, to use our own term, bonds, continuing, not merely for six months after the 29th November, 1933—which, as my hon. and learned Friend will remember, is the period of six months provided by Clause 6 of the Bill—but you would have control continuing for an additional period of six months, or, at any rate, there might be an additional period of six months. That is the first objection. The second, which I think is really conclusive, is that, if the Amendment were accepted, it would mean that, for a, period of no less than five years after the cessation of control of mortgages, matters would be left entirely in the hands of the court. If the Committee will look at sub-paragraph (2) of the proposed Amendment, they will see the power which it is proposed to confer on the court. Sub-paragraph (2) says:
During the period of five years succeeding the above-mentioned term, the sheriff court may, on the application of the landlord, make an order restraining the mortgagee from calling in his mortgage or taking steps for enforcing his security or for recovering the principal money thereby secured, if it is satisfied that such calling in, enforcement, or recovery would cause greater hardship to the landlord than to the mortgagee.
How is the court to determine that? It seems to me that, if the Amendment were accepted, it would simply be opening the door to endless litigation. The bondholder would come forward and say, "I am calling in my bond." The property owner would reply, "That is going to be a hardship to me." Then the bondholder would say, "The hardship to you
is not so great as the hardship to me if I do not get my bond called up." There would be no end to it, and the sheriff court Judge would need to sit and hear the contentions of the parties and come to a decision, against which, whichever way it went, there would in all probability be an appeal.
I do not in the least deny that, as my hon. and learned Friend says, there may be cases of hardship, but I am afraid that that is inevitable wherever you have decontrol. When there is decontrol of rents there is hardship, and when there is decontrol of mortgages there is hardship. But I venture to put it to the Committee that, on balance, the hardship is less when a definite date is fixed, so that people may know exactly where they stand. The mortgagee or bondholder will know exactly where he stands, and the property-owner, that is to say, the debtor on the bond, will know exactly where he stands. If this Amendment were accepted, no one would know where he stood. Accordingly, while we appreciate what is in the mind of my hon. and learned Friend in moving his Amendment, we are satisfied, after very careful consideration, that it would not be in the interests of the proper working of the Bill that an anomaly of this kind should be introduced in relation to Scotland. It is true that in 1923 there was a provision not dissimilar in its terms, but, as has been pointed out more than once, in 1923 there was in contemplation an all-round decontrol in 1924. The Government's mind is definitely made up, and I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend, in the circumstances, may not be inclined to press it.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I am sure the Lord Advocate's reply will be received with disappointment in many parts of the House and also in many parts of Scotland. He said that there may be cases of hardship. It seems to me obvious, particularly after the speech of my hon. and learned Friend, that there will be many cases of hardship if no such Amendment is inserted. In his concluding remarks, the Lord Advocate made a, distinction between the provisions in the Act of 1923 and the provisions in this Bill, and he said the difference was that in 1923 there was contemplated a general decontrol in the following year. Here we
have a partial decontrol, and I cannot see that there is any difference except a difference of degree. You may get hardships under decontrol next year just as you would have had them, in 1924, and I do not think that the considerations that weighed with the Government and the Legislature at that time have altered in any way in the intervening years. I think it is going to mean a great deal of avoidable hardship to property owners if the Bill goes through in this form.
In order to put the thing clearly as I see it, may I give a hypothetical example? Suppose you have property worth about £3,000 before the War, consisting of houses which are now to be decontrolled. Suppose that before the War you had a mortgage of £2,000. That would be the highest mortgage you would be able to get on the property in Scotland. By this time, with the depreciation that takes place in this form of property, the value will be down, I am told, to somewhere in the neighbourhood of £2,400. When the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, the mortgagee comes along and demands his money, and the owner has to find some way of raising the £2,000. He cannot get another mortgage for £2,000. The highest that he is able to raise now on the present value of his property is £1,600, and he has to find the difference of £400 in cash. Where is he to find it? As my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, it is all very well where the landlord has other means, but, where he relies for his income on the possession of this property, he is going to be put in an extraordinarily difficult position, and you may get some cases of very great hardship to property owners. The Lord Advocate said that under the first part of the Amendment the control of mortgages will continue not merely for six months, but for an additional period of six months. I am sure that was not in the mind of those who framed the Amendment, and I should think that could be adjusted. On the larger issue, I hope the Government will see their way to reconsider the matter, because we are sure this will mean very great hardship in certain cases in all parts of Scotland.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 10 (Interpretation), 11 (Consequential and minor Amendments to principal Act) and 12 (Short Title, Citation, extent and repeal) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendments as to permitted increase of rent in respect of improvements and structural alterations.)

(1) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Act of 1920, expenditure after the passing of this Act on the provision of additional or improved fixtures or fittings in a dwelling-house (not being expenditure on decoration or repairs) shall be deemed to be expenditure on the improvement of the dwelling-house.

(2) The county court shall not make an order under the proviso to the said paragraph (a) upon the application of any person unless he proves either—

(a) that he was the tenant when the expenditure was incurred and had not given his written consent to the improvement or alteration and the expenditure thereon; or
(b) that, the landlord having been in possession of the premises at the date when the expenditure was incurred, the applicant is the first tenant subsequent to that date and became tenant without notice of the following particulars, that is to say—

(i) the nature of the improvement or alteration; and
(ii) the amount of the expenditure thereon; and
(iii) the amount of the maximum increase of rent chargeable on account thereof.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.6 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Under the existing law it is permissible to increase the rent in respect of structural alterations and improvements, but those words have a very limited meaning. It is desired to enable permitted increases to be charged for the provision of additional fixtures and fittings and improved fixtures and fittings; in other words, in respect of the reconditioning of the premises. That necessitates a slight alteration of the law as it stands in the Act of 1920, because it is possible for a tenant to object to the increase of rent on the ground that the expenditure was unnecessary in whole or in part. It will be very difficult in all cases to say that the provision of
improved fittings, for example, or additional fixtures was wholly necessary, and a tenant would, therefore, be able to render this new Clause futile by an objection under that head. Therefore, we have to deal with that in this way. The second Sub-section of the new Clause deals with it. The sifting tenant is protected absolutely if he is able to say that the improvement was not in accordance with his written consent. On the other hand, if at the time the improvement was effected, as may very well be the case, the landlord himself was in possession of a vacant house, the next succeeding tenant is able to protect himself and resist the increase of rent unless he was given notice, first, of the nature of the improvement or alteration as the case may be, second, of the amount of the expenditure incurred thereon, and, third, of the amount of the maximum increase of rent chargeable on account thereof. I think hon. Members will agree that those provisions are sufficient protection both to the sitting tenant and to succeeding tenants.

Mr. GROVES: Does this relate to external structural improvements, or is it intended to cover such small matters as dressers in kitchens or internal decorations? If so, I think the proposed increase will be unwarrantable.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Structural alterations as such are dealt with in the existing law. There is a permitted increase of 6 or 8 per cent, in respect of structural improvements or alterations. It is intended here to deal with something wider than that—additional or improved fittings or structures for the benefit of the tenant which would not in the ordinary way be structural alterations in the strict sense of the word. Of course, repairs are already dealt with.

Mr. GROVES: If the landlord proposes to put in a new type of copper, or to change from gas to electricity, do I gather that such alterations are to be borne by the tenant? The tenant usually hires such apparatus and pays quarterly or yearly, and such a charge should not be imposed on him.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: A gas fire is rather in a different category. That is probably a tenant's fixture. We are talking about landlord's alterations—things on which the landlord incurs ex-
penditure. The tenant is not to pay the permitted increase of 8 per cent. for anything to which he does not assent. If he gives written consent, he pays the 8 per cent. If he does not, he either does not get the improvement or, if the landlord persists in putting it in in the absence of his written consent, he does not have to pay any increase. I do not think anyone can object to that as being unreasonable.

Mr. GROVES: In my own area we are trying to instal electric current in all working-class dwellings. We have no right unless we get the written consent of the landlord. Does this mean that, if you improve the amenities of the house by the installation of electricity and there is any change in tenancy, the landlord because he had agreed to such installation will be empowered to charge additional rent?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Now the hon. Member is asking about a new tenant.

Mr. GROVES: No, I do not mean a change.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Then I come back to what I said just now. In the case of a sitting tenant his consent—not only the landlord's but the tenant's—is necessary before he can be charged with a permitted increase. In the case of the improvement being done while the house is empty, the next tenant cannot be charged unless he has been given proper notice. If he does not like the additional increase, he need not go into the house.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: We have a new Clause later on declaring that the Section of the Act of 1920 which provides for certain increases of rent shall cease to have effect. We do not think this new Clause is any improvement on the present position. The Solicitor-General says that the tenant need not get these things done unless he gives his written consent. But one does not know exactly what is going to be the cost of repairs until they are actually completed, and you may have a tenant giving his written consent to a certain repair which may prove far more costly than he anticipated.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That point is covered by the wording of the
new Clause. He has not merely to consent to the improvement or alteration but also to the expenditure thereon.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Usually when anyone makes structural alterations to a house with the object of improving it he obtains an estimate for what has to be done. I do not suppose that the learned Solicitor-General would say that such an estimate was binding on the tenant or occupier and that increases on the original estimate are binding if it can be proved that the amounts are an addition. Only recently I was interested in regard to the tenancy of a house in London when the question of alterations had to be considered and there was an increase on the original estimate. The Clause raises another point. Already the landlord is allowed an increase of 40 per cent., a proportion of which is for repairs to the property. Those repairs are not merely repairs which a sanitary authority might compel, but repairs which are necessary in order to keep a house up-to-date and in good condition. Those for whom I speak maintain that the increase already allowed gives the landlord a sufficient amount under the conditions which now obtain. The only justification for this Clause would have been to have brought back the rents to the 1914 level.
Under the Acts a 25 per cent. increase was permitted in respect of repairs. I have never accepted the view, and I hope that it has not been accepted by the Committee, that a 25 per cent. increase for repairs was merely to cover the cost of what may be termed keeping a house in a fit state of human habitation. If that be the case, and speaking in respect of the district which I know best, that 25 per cent. has been obtained by wrongful means. I take it that the 25 per cent. was given for the purpose of repairs in order to enable a house to be kept thoroughly up-to-date. I am strongly opposed to the new Clause which is a means of saddling the tenant or occupier with an increase of rent. The increase the landlord already receives is sufficient to carry out the necessary repairs and to keep his house thoroughly up-to-date, and therefore I intend to oppose the Clause.

8.18 p.m.

Mrs. TATE: I should like to thank the Minister for introducing the Clause,
which covers the point which I raised on the Second Reading of the Bill. The learned Solicitor-General, in replying to me in a speech on the Second Reading, said that the Minister would consider inserting some Clause to allow for an increase of rent where there was genuine reconditioning. I think that the Clause entirely covers that condition and will be of real value to housing improvement. With all respect to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I do not think he is distinguishing between reconditioning and repairs. Reconditioning is a totally different thing from ordinary repairs, and "keeping a property up-to-date" is a very wide term. Once upon a time no one expected to find a bathroom in a house, but nowadays they certainly do. Plumbing, as everyone knows, is very expensive work to do, and real reconditioning is expensive, and it would not have been covered by the provisions in the Bill as they stood. I sincerely thank the Minister for introducing the Clause.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The point I wish to emphasise, and which the hon. Lady has taken up, is that the occupier will have to pay the increase. A bathroom is put into the house because the tenant pays the increased rent. Decontrol will end, or should end, in 1938, and what will happen will be that when decontrol comes along, the landlord will be able to let the house at an increased rent, whereas the tenant will have paid for the bath and not the landlord. The tenant will have paid his 8 per cent. increase of rent.

8.21 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is very important that the Committee should keep these two things quite distinct. This eight per cent. in no way overlaps the permitted increase for repairs. It is expressly stated that the things which attract this eight per cent. about which we are talking must not be expenditure on decorations or repairs. The two things are definitely in watertight compartments, just as the structural alterations and repairs are also in watertight compartments, with rates again in another watertight compartment. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) spoke about an estimate being exceeded. In a case like that,
the tenant who assented to the expenditure in the original estimate, if it was exceeded without his consent, would be liable, in my opinion, for the eight per cent. on the original estimate, and would not be liable on the excess to which he had not assented.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: It is obvious that any sort of Amendment to make the position more difficult for the tenant and more beneficial for the owners or factors will have the complete support of the Government. Anything which tells against the tenant is being put into the Bill. It is an underhand method of increasing rents. Up to the present time—and I think that those who were members of the Marley Committee will at least agree—the landlord has not carried out repairs and decorations. As a matter of fact, landlords obtained a 25 per cent. increase oh the understanding they would at least carry out the repairs and keep their houses in a habitable state. They have ignored the position entirely. The one thing upon which there was common agreement among the witnesses from every part of the country before the Marley Committee was that the conditions under which an increase of 25 per cent. had been granted had not been carried out. I look upon the proposed Clause as revealing the intention of the Government, not merely to relieve the landlord in the future of any responsibility for painting, decorating and keeping houses in an ordinary, decent state of repair, but, if he does any repairs, to enable him to claim ah additional increase of rent. It is difficult to find language within Parliamentary rules to express what one feels with regard to this more or less unreasonable and unfair attempt to improve the position of the landlord at the expense of his tenant, and particularly the poorer tenants, because those are the people who suffer most. It is the tenant in the one, two or three-apartment house who suffers most from lack of repairs, decorations, painting and the other accessory things that up to the period of the War were looked upon as the duty of the landlord. That duty has been transferred from the landlord to the tenant, and, in addition, the tenant is to be called upon to pay what is equiva-
lent to an increase in rent. Like the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I shall vote against the new Clause.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: I think that in many directions the Government have clearly acted in the interests of the landlord, but I think the new Clause is to the advantage of the tenant.

Mr. BUCHANAN: No.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: It is clearly a case where the tenant is going to benefit. One realises that a very large number of houses are not habitable. Even if the landlord puts them into a better state of repair, they are far from being the type of house that one wishes for at the present time. They do not bear any comparison, for instance, to the council houses. If improvements of the character suggested by the Clause are to be made in these houses, they are improvements which definitely are to the tenant's advantage, and, if the landlord is prepared to execute them, he is entitled to some return on his expenditure.

Mr. BUCHANAN: A large number of poor people are affected, many of them unemployed, and obviously they cannot pay more than they are now paying. Therefore, they are not going to pay extra to get the house put into a right condition. Will the hon. Member tell me how it is proposed that the very poorest people who live in houses which need to be brought up to date are going to have them brought up to date, if they are to pay for it? Why should not the landlord be compelled to bring the houses of these poor people up to date, seeing that they cannot afford to do it themselves?

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: I do not know whether the House realises or hon. Members opposite realise that the owners of many of these houses are working men. In my constituency a very large number of houses belong to, working men who have been thrifty They have bought two or three houses or have built two houses in years gone by, one for themselves and one which they have let. It has been impossible for them to modernise these houses and recondition them, and it is not fair to expect them to do it, unless they are sure
of some return on the expenditure. It is not likely that these improvements are going to be carried out unless the tenant and the landlord are in agreement. Apart from the new Clause, assuming the tenant and the landlord were in agreement, as the law now stands in regard to matters of this character, such an agreement would not be valid and could not be enforced. An agreement for an additional charge by way of interest, etc., on the expenditure could not be enforced unless this new Clause were inserted. If we exclude this Clause from the Bill, the effect will be that, until decontrol takes place, you will stop many improvements from being carried out by landlords. The new Clause is perfectly reasonable and is in the interests of the tenant as much as the landlord and will have the effect in many districts of modernising and reconditioning houses.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: I oppose the Amendment, and I wonder why it has been introduced. It would be interesting to know why the Amendment has been introduced. It is a dangerous Clause. What is meant by the term "fixtures and fittings," and how far is the landlord likely to go in pressing existing tenants to come to some mutual and signed agreement for alterations in fittings and fixtures when at the end of five years, after the existing tenant has paid a percentage of the costs, the house becomes decontrolled? Who suggested the new Clause? It certainly has not come from the tenants. It must have come from the landlords, who feel that if they can impose the cost of these alterations on the tenants to a large degree for the next five years and then decontrol comes along, they will be able to charge what rent they like. In my district I have not noticed anything that would justify the new Clause. If it is to be a question of mutual arrangement, nothing could have prevented the tenant in the past from mutually agreeing with the landlord with regard to new fittings, etc., without an Act of Parliament. If I had lived in a controlled house, nothing could have prevented me from coming to an agreement over structural alterations, and paying a percentage of the cost, but I have not wanted to do so. So far as I know, there has been no call from the tenants for this Amendment. The
Amendment is a very dangerous thing and is likely to impose additional rent on tenants who occupy old-fashioned houses. The Minister must have behind his mind the interests of the landlords to have introduced a Clause of this sort. If it is introduced in the interests of the tenants, there is no need for it. It is not in the interests of the tenants. Therefore, we shall oppose it, if the Minister is not prepared to withdraw it.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I cannot understand the argument of the hon. Member who has just sat down. Surely hon. Members will agree that if a landlord goes to the expense of putting his house in a more habitable state he is entitled to some compensation.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Why? It is not the tenant's house; it is the landlord's.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I really cannot understand the argument of hon. Members opposite in opposing this proposal, because they are always concerned about making houses fit for the people. Surely you cannot expect the lardlord to put in such things as electric light or a fixed bath without charging some reasonable amount for the capital expended?

Mr. BUCHANAN: An unemployed man is entitled to have the things even if he cannot pay an increased rent. We say that the cost should be borne by the landlord.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I had a case only a few weeks ago in which a constituent asked me if I could get electric light put into his house. The new Clause simply gives the landlord power to charge a reasonable amount, and I cannot understand the objection of hon. Members to tenants having better houses in which to live.

Mr. LOGAN: Is it not possible for the landlord to do this by mutual arrangement? Is it not the ease that such an arrangement is being carried out between landlord and tenant?

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: If a landlord has a row of houses, say 12 houses, and the first two tenants agree but the third will not, then the continuity of the scheme cannot be maintained without this new Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 230 Noes, 42.

Division No. 144.]
AYES.
[8.37 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hales, Harold K.
Peat, Charles U.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Penny, Sir George


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Harbord, Arthur
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Harris, Sir Percy
Petherick, M.


Apsley, Lord
Hartland, George A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Potter, John


Atkinson, Cyril
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Balniel, Lord
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Holdsworth, Herbert
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Horobin, Ian M.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Horsbrugh, Florence
Remer, John R.


Blindell, James
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Borodale, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Robinson, John Roland


Brass, Captain Sir William
Jennings, Roland
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Broadbent, Colonel John
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Salt, Edward W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., s.)
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Samuel. Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Leckie, J. A.
Scone, Lord


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Selley, Harry R.


Conant, R. J. E.
Lees-Jones, John
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Copeland, Ida
Lewis, Oswald
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwelll


Cowan, D. M.
Lidall, Walter S.
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Crooke, J. Smedley
Little, Graham-, sir Ernest
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Donner, P. W.
McKie, John Hamilton
Soper, Richard


Doran, Edward
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Drewe, Cedric
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Magnay, Thomas
Stevenson, James


Duggan, Hubert John
Maitland, Adam
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Eastwood, John Francis
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Edge, Sir William
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Strauss, Edward A.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Martin, Thomas B.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sutcliffe, Harold


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Tate, Mavis Constance


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Milne, Charles
Thompson, Luke


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Thomson. Sir Frederick Charles


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Moore, Lt.-Col, Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Moreing, Adrian C
Train, John


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Morgan, Robert H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Morrison, William Shepherd
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Goff, Sir Park
Moss, Captain H. J.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Goldie, Noel B.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Munro, Patrick
Wells, Sydney Richard


Gower, Sir Robert
Nail, Sir Joseph
White, Henry Graham


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rt'd, N.)
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Greene, William P. C.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Nunn, William
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Grimston, R. v.
O'Connor, Terence James
Womersley, Walter James


Gritten, W. G. Howard
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Ormiston, Thomas
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Owen, Major Goronwy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Palmer, Francis Noel
Commander Southby and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pearson, William G.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Dobbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John
Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

Clause added to the Bill.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: On a point of Order, I wish to ask your Ruling, Mr. Chairman. There are several new Clauses on the Paper dealing with the same subject as the next new Clause which I understand you are about to call. Is it your intention to allow a general discussion on the question of the increase of rent on the new Clause which is about to be called, or is the matter to be dealt with separately on each of the new Clauses as they come up?

The CHAIRMAN: On the new Clause I am about to call I cannot allow a discussion which would go beyond the terms of that Clause, but discussion on that Clause will no doubt be pretty wide.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Modification of permitted increases in rent.)

Section two of the Act of 1920 (which provides for certain increases in rent) shall have effect as though in paragraph (c) thereof for the word "fifteen" there were substituted the word "ten" and as though in paragraph (d) thereof for the word "twenty-five" there shall be substituted the word "ten."—[Mr. Cape.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. CAPE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Subsection (2, c) of the Act of 1920, to which reference is made, contains the words:
in addition to any such amounts as aforesaid, an amount not exceeding 15 per cent. of the net rent.
Sub-section (2, d), to which reference is also made, contains these words:
where the landlord is responsible for the whole of the repairs, an amount not exceeding twenty-five per cent. of the net rent.
By this new Clause we seek to substitute 10 for 15 per cent., and 10 for 25 per cent. If my recollection serves me right in the discussion of the 1920 Act when it was passing through this House it was stated that the landlord was not amongst the people who had benefited by the wave of prosperity that was then passing over the country. From 1919 to 1922 we were going through what was supposed to be, and was, a time of reasonable prosperity. People who were in employment were getting higher wages than those of to-day, and people who had money invested were getting better returns than they receive to-day. It was argued that the landlords or property owners of the country should have some share of the national prosperity. The 15 per cent. was placed on the standard rent as a sort of gift to the landlord at that time, and the 25 per cent. for repairs was added on the understanding that the landlord would have to do all the repairs necessary to keep a house in habitable condition. It was argued that 25 per cent. was not too high a figure because of the high cost of materials and the high wages paid to workmen.
I submit that the two reasons for those figures have now entirely disappeared. Instead of our being in a time of prosperity we are passing through very serious depression, and every one has suffered, and none more than the workers. Wages have gone down to a low level in all phases of industry. Therefore the claim of the landlord has entirely disappeared. As a matter of fact I think we have placed the figure too high at 10 per cent. If I had my way I would say that 5 per cent. was an adequate amount to meet the landlords' demand, but 10 per cent. is in the new Clause, and no one can say that it is an unreasonable request. In regard to the 25 per cent. there is a good case for a reduction.
We ask that the figure should be 10 per cent., and that is not too big a reduction if all the facts stated in official publications are correct. The wages of building operatives of every type have been considerably reduced since 1920. The price of materials used in house repairs is also considerably lower. The wages of the men who produce those materials have been reduced. There has been a decrease all along the line.
It is not too much to ask the Minister to say to landlords who have enjoyed this privilege for all these years, "The time has arrived when you must make a fair sacrifice as well as everyone else." That is applying the matter to the good landlord. But I submit that there are many landlords who have taken this 25 per cent. and spent none of it on repairs. It is well known to all of us who live in boroughs that, generally speaking, before repairs can be carried out, borough officials have to be brought in to certify that a house is uninhabitable. Many landlords have not spent anything like 25 per cent. on the repair of their houses. Mat type of landlord has taken advantage of the 1920 Act, and instead of doing what Parliament intended that he should do he has evaded his responsibility. But all the time he has collared the swag. The good landlord, on the other hand, has kept his house in reasonably good condition. But even the good landlord in receiving 25 per cent. is getting more than the repairs would cost. Otherwise he got considerably less than he ought to have had in 1920. When the 25 per cent. was given, there were no complaints from the landlords in regard to the amount. They felt that it was adequate to meet their demands. It is quite obvious that to-day it must be more than necessary to meet those demands. In those circumstances, I venture to think that the Minister will accept the new Clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] There is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not accept it, but he has been adamant during the Committee stage on this Bill. I asked him, however, to soften or relent a little in this case, to look upon this matter from a reasonable point of view, and to meet out request.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: In supporting the proposed new Clause I should like to draw the Committee's attention to the manner
in which the rents question affects the tremendous number of people who, during the last ten years, have had to put up with reduced incomes while this 40 per cent. has been added to their rents. I do not think there is any single question affecting the economic life of the working class of this country which involves a greater burden than the question of rent. I remember reading the opinion of a great economist to the effect that when a man was paying more than one-tenth of his income for shelter, he could not maintain a reasonable economic standard for his wife and children. If there was ever any truth in that statement at any time, it is particularly true to-day. Nothing affects working-class people more to-day than this question of rent.
Let us endeavour to analyse the position dispassionately and solely with a view to ascertaining the truth. The landlords were permitted a 40 per cent. increase, and I think it would be fair to say that all the property included in the first Rent Restrictions Act was property built before the War. We sometimes lose sight of the fact that the rents which were being charged when the first Act was passed, were economic rents fixed before the War, without any obstruction or interference, and in regard to which it is safe to assume that the landlord had fixed a rent which gave him a good return for his money. There was no real complaint when Parliament took into consideration the high standards prevailing in 1920, when the landlord was given reasonable protection in respect of money expended on his property and this 40 per cent. increase was allowed. But to-day nobody can defend the continuance of the 40 per cent increase, in respect of property built before the War, in face of the decline which has taken place in incomes in all classes of society and particularly among wage-earners. One of the first things which a National Government ought to consider is relieving the working people of this burden of the 40 per cent. increase, which cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be defended in 1933.
I suggest that no bigger grievance exists in the country than that of tenants being called upon to-day to pay a 40 per cent. increase which was allowed to the landlords at a time when the general economic conditions were far different from what they are now. There were
some landlords who thought the 40 per cent, excessive. In some isolated instances it was never applied. I know of some landlords who were satisfied with 30 per cent. But the majority took full advantage of the concession. We may not have grudged them that concession in the years from 1921 to 1925, but, in 1933, when the general economic conditions have changed, we consider it a. scandal to expect working men to continue to pay a 40 per cent, increase on the 1914 standard rent, having regard to the reductions which have recently taken place in their wages. I should like to hear the Minister attempt to defend a continuation of the 40 per cent. increase under present-day conditions. Wages have gone down; the cost of repairs has gone down, and nearly every respectable landlord in the country would be satisfied, at this time of day, with something far less than 40 per cent.
The Government came into office on the promise that they would endeavour to share the burden and adjust the sacrifice. Here is their opportunity. They can deal with one of the greatest scandals from which the country is suffering by reducing this 40 per cent. to a reasonable figure. Very few landlords to-day could justify anything higher than a 20 per cent, increase on the rents charged in 1914 for their property. We ask the Minister, at least in one piece of legislation, to consider the serious lot of the wage earners and the people with small incomes and to adjust this matter within the realm of reason. The proposed new Clause gives the landlord "a fair crack of the whip," having regard to the conditions of 1933 and it gives the tenant some reasonable redress for the reduction of income from which he is suffering. We think that the country would welcome this new Clause and that no reasonable landlord would deny this concession to his tenants.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: In view of the fact that I have put down a new Clause which goes part of the way with that of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape), it may be advantageous if I put my views on the matter before the Committee at this stage. I assure the Minister that I do so in no spirit of hostility to the Government, but in order
to carry out a pledge, given to a very large number of my constituents who were good supporters of the National Government, that I would raise this matter on the Floor of the House of Commons. As one who is neither landlord nor tenant, I have endeavoured to hold the scales evenly in this very important matter, which, I think, the Committee can reasonably discuss on a nonparty basis.
The Order Paper shows that there is a considerable difference of degree in opinion on this matter in the House. The Government are apparently satisfied that the whole of the 40 per cent. permitted increase should remain, but the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) proposes that the whole 40 per cent. should be wiped out, and hon. Members opposite propose to reduce it by half. My view, after weighing the matter up as dispassionately as I can, is that if the permitted increase stood at 30 per cent. in all, justice would be done, but I can at least go that much of the road with hon. Members opposite. I should like to refer to a passage in the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General when he was winding up the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. Referring to this subject, he said:
If you take off the permitted increase of 40 per cent., or any part of it, you are going again to indulge in a glaring instance of retrospective legislation of a confiscatory kind. Again let it be remembered that, on the faith of these permitted increases, which have now been in force, I think, for 12 years, and possibly in the hope of decontrol in addition, countless sales have taken place. Let it be observed, also, that to take off the permitted increase now would hit hardest the best type of landlord—the man who has spent up to the hilt on the repairs for which he got his 25 per cent. He has spent that money in the hope of being able to recoup himself out of the permitted increase, and it is now proposed that that permitted increase should be cut off." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1932: cols. 265–6, Vol. 273.]
I want, with the greatest respect, to submit to the Government and to the hon. and learned Gentleman in particular, whom I am sorry not to see in his place, that there is no ground for the statement that to reduce this permitted increase of rent is anything like confiscatory legislation. It has been admitted on all sides that it was hoped this rent restriction legislation would be temporary, but the permitted increase has been renewed
year after year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It may be that sales have taken place on the assumption that that 40 per cent. permitted increase would continue, but there is no justification for any transfer of property having taken place on that basis. Everybody must have known that there was a possibility at any moment of such a Government coming into office as might be formed from the benches opposite, which would for once have the courage to do in office what it talked about in Opposition, and actually bring about a decrease of rents. Everybody must have foreseen that possibility.
It is as justifiable to say that blocks of 5 per cent. War Loan changed hands on the assumption that 5 per cent. would be paid until 1947, the latest possible date at which redemption could take place, but within the terms of the prospectus, a conversion scheme is carried out, and the 5 per cent. is reduced to 3½ per cent; and if the people waited to be redeemed, they found it was impossible to obtain 5 per cent. in any gilt-edged security. No one would suggest that the Government, in doing that, were carrying out "retrospective legislation of a confiscatory kind." They were carrying out something which they were strictly entitled to do, and they are equally entitled now to make a reduction in the permitted increase of rent. I claim that it should be done in the permitted increase for repairs and that the 25 per cent. for repairs might be reduced to 15 per cent.
There was one other argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman put forward on the same occasion, when he said:
I have never heard the hon. Members"—
He was referring to the hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for Gorbals—
for example, suggest that the baker who supplies a loaf to an unemployed man is obliged to charge 40 per cent. less than the market price for it, or that the bootmaker who supplies a pair of boots to a man who is in part-time employment is obliged to charge 20 per cent. less than the market price for those boots."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1932; cols. 266–7, Vol. 273.]
There again, with great respect, that argument is just a little specious. That is what has in fact happened. The price of food has decreased since 1920, the
price of boots has decreased, and what the Government propose to do, so far from allowing events to take their course, is to peg rents until 1938 at what may well be an uneconomic level. It is very difficult to prophesy what the situation will be five years hence, but there might well be a decline in the value of property, and the proposal of the Government is to peg these rents at 40 per cent. above pre-War rates till 1938. I suggest that that is a very poor result for their conversion scheme of last year, which was supposed to set in motion the whole process of the decline of these heavy overhead charges of one sort and another.
When I put these views forward in the Second Reading Debate—I hope with moderation, as I am endeavouring to do now—I had in consequence an extremely interesting post-bag, and I should like to inform the Committee very briefly what the gist of that post-bag has been. It is not often that I aim in agreement with the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price). but it confirms one point that he has just made, namely, that the good landlord has not availed himself of the whole of this 40 per cent. permitted increase. I have had cases in my constituency of landlords writing to me, objecting to my attitude. When I have gone into their cases I have found that they have never put on the whole 40 per cent. increase, and they thought they were going to suffer a reduction on a rent which had not been put up to the figure to which they were permitted to increase it. While I have had letters of that kind from the good landlords, it is only right to inform the Committee that I have had a different kind of letter, couched in terms of abuse which are not British, over signatures which are not British, from many of the industrial centres of this country; and it might be a small part of the Government's policy of protecting the British working man against the foreigner to do something to protect him against the bad slum landlord in some of these great areas.
There is one other point which I am entitled to put, particularly from these benches. We have often spoken on behalf of the direct taxpayer, and got very little sympathy from hon. Members opposite, but I can assure them that, however bad the direct taxpayer may be in himself, the item to which he objects least when
the Government put their hands into his pocket is that part of the taxation which goes to the maintenance of the unemployed. I have never yet met a direct taxpayer who objected to the Government's hands being put into his pocket to maintain the unemployed. But he has every reason for objecting to the Government putting their hands into his pocket and taking out money to give to the unemployed to pass on directly to the landlord, thereby depriving the unemployed man of the proper expenditure of that money upon the sustenance of his family, for which it is really intended. I feel very strongly that rent forms far too great a proportion of the household budget of our people in a great number of these industrial centres.
The other day, when we had a private Members' Debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Boulton), on excessive taxation, a speech was made by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), on the benches opposite, who said that the direct taxpayer and the rentier, the holder of Government stocks, were one and the same person. If that were so, I should not be so inclined to press upon the Committee the view which I have just expressed, but the fact is—and it is a very extraordinary and interesting fact—that anyone who sees, day after day, deeds of transfer of Government stocks knows what a tremendous proportion of them Are held by people in very humble circumstances, below the Income Tax limit; and those people, to a huge extent, having patriotically accepted the conversion of their savings from 5 per cent. to 3½ per cent., are entitled to see the proper effect of that action in something being done to lower their rents. I desire to air, on behalf of large numbers of my constituents, who are supporters of the Government, what I believe to be a really legitimate grievance, and I hope the Government will be prepared to give sympathetic consideration to that point of view. If they were to meet us on this matter, so far from doing themselves any harm. they would be doing themselves a great deal of good, not only in this House, but among the millions of people in the country who desire the National Government to continue in office.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: No Amendment before the Committee has greater importance than this proposed new Clause. The substitution of 20 per cent. for 40 per cent. would be a real boon. One can certainly say that if 40 per cent. was right in 1920 it is not right to-day. Landlords are able to get their materials cheaper and labour is cheaper. When men are being turned adrift, most of them to the public assistance committees to get transitional payment, the Government, if they wished, could reduce poverty by recognising the justice and merits of the claim which we are now putting before the Committee. We have a right to see that there is equitable treatment as between landlord and tenant. I pay due regard to those landlords who are keeping their houses in a habitable state of repair and fit for human being to live in, but I am depressed when I look at the vampires, mostly aliens, in my city who are speculating in the need of our people for housing. I look round Liverpool and see the speculation that is going on in property which is causing additions to rents, and then I find that by an Act of Parliament men without souls are able to turn people adrift and charge whatever they like.
I do not think that the imposition of the 40 per cent. was ever intended by the House of Commons to enable these people to suck dry the blood of the bodies of those who have hardly enough on which to live. A case will be tried at Liverpool Sessions to-morrow of a young man who is paying 6s. for a room. He has been stealing to maintain a wife, child and himself. He has 8s. a week on which to keep three souls and has to pay 6s. for one room. It was only after pressure that he had it reduced from 7s. The room is in a house which is being let for 12s. a week, and there are six rooms in it which are let at the rate of 7s. each. If a man wants a fair return for his money, no one will begrudge an equitable return for a safe investment in property. The Minister of Health knows from his visit to Liverpool of the slumdom in the heart of the city near the Town Hall. There you have the greatest slumdom in the world. I have travelled extensively on the Continent, and I have never seen anything so terrible as in the Exchange Division. There under this system of 40 per cent. you are allowing profiteering to go on, not by legitimate landlords and those who
have invested in properties for years, but by the speculator who buys up demolition areas and retains them. These men—God forgive me for calling them such—are given the opportunity by Act of Parliament to get this 40 per cent.
They have not any heart and soul and are continually going to the court and having people turned into the street because they cannot pay the extortionate rents. They come along pleading the law of England which enables them to grow rich at the expense of the poverty of our people. When the National Government with its economy stunts are practising economy all along the line, surely we on these benches have a right after these Acts have been in operation for 13 years to say that there is no justification with a fall of wages and prices for this 40 per cent. increase. Every hon. Member must feel in his conscience that the first duty of the nation is to make provision for decent homes. No nation can be proud unless its people are decently housed. The criminal statistics will decline from the moment the people are given the opportunity of living in decent homes. The conditions in regard to letting houses have changed entirely. Houses to-day are let with key money of anything from £15 to £20 by some of the aliens who are speculating in property.
There is not a house to-day that need be untenanted, because the demand is so great. Municipalities are not able to keep up with the building of houses, and because of the shortage we have given to the landlord a 'security that no one else in the country has. You give him the facilities of the Law Courts to collect arrears, and he can put tenants out into the street, while other men in business have to lose their money. They have not the same protection in their businesses that is given to the owners of property. Is the Minister so adamant that he can say that there is no justice in our claim for a reduction in the increase? It has been said that there is no justification for the cry that goes up from every part of the land that people are paying too much in rent, and that the nation is not giving sufficient housing accommodation at an economic rent which the people are able to pay.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting on to something rather like a Second Reading speech.

Mr. LOGAN: I am giving reasons why the Minister should take action. In the area in which I live there are houses of 60 or 70 years of age in respect of which the landlords are receiving the 40 per cent. increase. Instead of being depreciated and being brought down to 50 per cent. below the pre-war rental, their owners are receiving the 40 per cent. imposition. If these houses were fit and tenantable and could be reckoned on an equitable basis with newly-built houses, it would be all right, but the owners of these old houses should not be able to claim this 40 per cent. increase. There is no man who can come here and justify such an imposition. It is because of that and because the Minister, who has been round the various cities, knows as well as anyone the housing conditions which exist—

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to keep more directly to the actual Clause under consideration.

Mr. LOGAN: I will keep within the Clause. I am trying to impress on the Minister that conditions have changed. We are now advocating a reduction of this 40 per cent., and I am giving these illustrations to point out to him facts which cannot be disputed. I think I have a right to point out that when this agreement was entered into there were certain emergency conditions which have disappeared in the course of 13 years, and at the end of that period we come along and in honesty, sincerity and truth we ask the Minister how he can resist an appeal such as this, which is going to bring rentals down and give an opportunity to people to live at an economic rental while giving to the just and fair landlord an honest return for the money which he has expended? I put it to the Minister that there is not a Member in this House who is not anxious to see redress given in the industrial areas, and I trust the Minister may see his way to make this concession and accept the Clause.

9.27 p.m.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: I had not intended to speak on this Clause, but I feel bound, as a colleague of the hon.
Member who preceded the last speaker (Mr. G. Braithwaite) to differ very respectfully from his attitude on this subject. I do not want to get into an argument with him, but I want to make it clear that he is speaking for himself alone and that that attitude is not one which I could follow. There is one thing I should like to say. I do not think the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) should have brought in prejudice against property owners by referring to the alien question as much as he did. It was quite unnecessary.

Mr. LOGAN: That is what we are suffering from in the city of Liverpool.

Sir S. ROBERTS: I thought it was quite unnecessary prejudice. Another thing which hon. Members forget is that the owners of property are practically the only people who have been restricted all this long time. When the cost of living was 200 per cent. up and wages were over 100 per cent. above pre-War, the property owner was kept down to 40 per cent., and he did not share in the boom. All this time he has not been able to sell controlled property. It is an unmarketable commodity, and it has been extraordinarily difficult to raise mortgages on it when money was required. The property owner has a distinct grievance under control. For the public good he has been made to suffer, and I do not think it is fair to attack him in this way.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: There is a good deal to be said on both sides of the question. We want it to be clearly understood that we are not here making an attack on the landlords. We do not desire to attack the landlord who has recognised his duty. I believe the hon. Member who has just Spoken was a Member of the House when the 1920 Act was passed.

Sir S. ROBERTS: No, I came in 1921.

Mr. GRAHAM: When that Act was passed wages were very high. In the industry to which a number of us belong we remember that particular time very well, because the country was flooded with statements about the high wages that miners were earning, which were said to be from 18s. to 19s. a day. That was 12 years ago, and we have 8s. a day
now. There has been a very considerable reduction in the wages during that period. The coalowners occupy a considerable number of houses, and it is not a question of merely 40 per cent. I know of any number of colliery houses where the rents have increased by over 100 per cent. as compared with pre-war. These houses were built 30 years ago, and I also know houses that are over 100 years old and which are occupied to-day. There is no desire to act unfairly towards the landlord, but we do say that hon. Members on the other side should have some regard to the necessities of the tenant. There is no justification for the continuance of this 40 per cent. increase in rent. We are not asking that the full 40 per cent. should be taken off, although, personally, I would be prepared to support the Clause in that sense which is to be moved by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). This is a proposal that the increase should be reduced by 20 per cent. I do not think that is an unreasonable claim in view of the fact that wages have fallen in every industry and particularly in what are called the sheltered industries, which form a very large percentage of the working-class population.
In my own industry there are hundreds of thousands of houses owned by colliery companies, and the wages of the miners have fallen from a comparatively high level from 1920 until they have now reached the point which it is fair to say is not sufficient to maintain them in anything like decent comfort or which would justify asking them to continue paying the increase of rent which is at present in operation. As far as we know, the Government are still prepared to stand by what is an absolutely unreasonable attitude to adopt. I do not know anything about the position in Liverpool, but I do know what the position in Lanarkshire is. It is not aliens, but natives of Scotland who are largely responsible for the bad conditions under which our people are living. I do not know whether the Minister on this occasion will be any more willing to accept an argument from our side than he has been in the past, but if I were a Conservative or a Tory Member I would accept this Amendment because of the advantage it would give me in the country. From a political point of view, I do not much mind whether this
Amendment is accepted or not, because if it is rejected that fact will be of very considerable advantage to us when the Government are compelled to face the electorate. When that time comes, I am afraid they will not be able to justify the action they are taking to-night by continuing the 40 per cent. increase on rents. I appeal to the Minister on other than purely economic or moral grounds, from the standpoint of his own political party and its future, to consider favourably the proposal we have put forward.

9.36 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) has made an appeal to me on what he calls arguments other than moral or economic—if he will excuse me for saying so, very much other. If I were always free to consider a decision in such a difficult matter as this from the standpoint which he has referred to, I quite grant that one could often attain a very much better measure of popularity, though with a very much less measure of justice.

Mr. GRAHAM: You have played the game of popularity all right.

Sir H. YOUNG: Listening to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) I have to remind myself of something which was said on the Second Reading of the Bill, that we are dealing here with a rent restriction Bill, and that we cannot hope that such a Bill will heal the age-long conflict of interests between landlord and tenant. As long as the world lasts, or, if he prefers it as a good Socialist, as long as the present state of society lasts, there will be such feelings as he has expressed tonight on the part of tenants towards landlords, and equally intense feelings on the part of some landlords towards tenants. The marvellous thing in an ordered country such as ours is the way in which people get down to their difficulties and puzzle out a somewhat reasonable relationship to each other even when their economic interests seem to be in conflict. In this matter, which is one admittedly of very grave concern, it has been the function of the Government to try to see what is the just thing to be done. This cannot be decided as a matter of passion or emotion, and still less, with apologies to the hon. Member for Hamilton, as a matter of party policy. It has
to be decided on figures—on the figures which support the justice of the claim or the justice of the response to that claim. That is what I shall attempt to do.
Let me point out in the first place a single overriding circumstance which governs the whole of this matter. We are dealing here with a very exceptional state of affairs in which there has been a great national emergency, the lack of an adequate supply of houses and State action of a very special nature taken upon that emergency. The effect of that action has been to deprive a certain section of the community of their legitimate expectations of a return upon their investments in property, in the interest of the community as a whole. That has been the essence of rent restriction. The landlord has been singled out from among all other classes of property owners, all other classes of investors, to make a contribution to the benefit of the economic welfare of the community as a whole. When we realise that that is the basis of rent restriction I think we shall agree to approach the question with the most careful anxiety to see that we are inflicting no fresh deprivation—I will not say hardship or injustice—that is unnecessary upon this class which has already been selected for sacrifice in the interests of the whole community.
Let me in that spirit deal with the contention that there should now be a decrease in the 40 per cent. permitted increase in rent. First of all there is the argument stated by an hon. Member opposite that wages have decreased and that consequently there ought to be an allowance in the matter of rent. Even if there has been a decrease of wages, what justification could there be for asking from this particular class of investors a fresh sacrifice by way of contribution towards the necessities of the community as a whole? It would be very difficult to justify it; but I would rather get at once to the facts of the case. As a matter of fact the increase in the rate of wages is still greater than the increase in the permitted rents including the rates. That being so, we find ourselves confronted with another instance of the old tragedy of the conflict of theory with harsh facts. The harsh fact is that the increase of wage rates is still greater than the increase per cent. of rent.

Mr. D. GRAHAM indicated dissent.

Sir H. YOUNG: That is a fact which can be proved if the hon. Member for Hamilton will take the precaution, before he contradicts me of referring to the figures of the Minister al Labour. In the second place the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) advanced the proposition that the landlord's claim to an increase had entirely disappeared owing to the fall in the cost of repairs. That is simply not the case. If we take the figure for the cost of repairs in 1914 as 100 it will be found that in 1932, the last year for which I can get an exact figure, the figure is 175, showing an increase of 75 per cent. over pre-War. Therefore, it is not the case that the landlord's claim has entirely disappeared. There is still a very substantial claim. Another aspect of the matter is that it is absolutely misleading, and will lead one to do grave injustice, to consider the position simply as it stands at the present time, because the point of view of the landlord, the investor in house property, is that his interests have been affected over the whole period during which rent restriction has been imposed. If we are to consider what is just and fair between the landlord and tenant we must not only consider the position now, at one instant of time, but the total effect of what has been happening during the whole period of rent restriction. It is perfectly true, it is a conspicuous fact, that recently there has been a decrease in the cost of repairs, and that by taking simply the figure at the present time one might frame an argument that 40 per cent. is too high an increase.
If you will look back and consider the trend during the time that rent restriction has been imposed, you will see that the figure has been by no means too high. Taking the basic year 1914 again, and the cost of repairs at 100 in that year, in the year 1920, which was the peak year, the cost of repairs was up to 280; there was an increase of 180 per cent. compared with a permitted increase of 40 per cent. The simple fact is that during a long period of many years, during which rent restriction has been imposed, 40 per cent, has been absolutely inadequate to enable the landlords to effect repairs upon an economic basis. In considering the circumstances at the present time, when the cost of repairs
has fallen, those who have, during so many years, put up with a permitted increase which was inadequate, must be allowed time to recover from the effect of the loss which they suffered during that period. It is an obvious fact that if, at any time during those years, rent restriction had been taken off, rents would have jumped up by 40 per cent, or by 100 per cent. It is part of the case of hon. Members opposite that if you took off restriction now rents would jump.

Mr. LOGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he estimates was the increase in 1926?

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg the hon. Member's pardon, but that point is not relevant to my argument. Rents would have jumped up during this period, if restriction had been withdrawn, by reason of the fact that landlords were unable, without loss, to carry out repairs on the basis of the 40 per cent. increase. We must consider the whole period, when deciding what to do at the present time.
Let me now deal with the other argument advanced by the hon. Member who spoke about the bad landlords who have not carried out repairs. There is no controversy if there are such, as to tenants being able to make use of their rights to secure repairs being carried out. For that we must seek a remedy elsewhere. Remedies are provided in the Bill. A tenant can refuse to pay the permitted increase if the repairs are not carried out. In the Bill which we are now passing, we adopt further machinery to assist the tenant to secure those rights by enabling the local authority to give information as to what the tenant's rights are. I hope very much that that will enable a greater number of tenants to secure their rights. Those are the appropriate remedies against the bad landlords who refuse to carry out repairs. It is absolutely inappropriate to confound the good landlords with the bad, and to make a general reduction of the permitted increase which would not be applicable on general grounds.
After the most careful consideration which it is possible to give to this question, I suggest to the Committee that the conclusion is forced upon us that there is no case, at the present time, for a reduction of the permitted increase of rent. We must regard the whole period during
which rent restriction has been running, and we must also regard the future. We must regard the special restrictions which are imposed upon landlords in the very nature of rent control, and we are driven to the conclusion that, so far from being able to make a reduction in the permitted increase in favour of the tenant, any further reduction would be imposing a fresh and a quite inequitable burden upon those who have invested their money in house property.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Most of us would be very sorry if the Minister made such a reduction. I do not expect the Minister to accept the Amendment which is on the Paper. To decrease 40 per cent. to 20 per cent. is too much to expect at one time, and that is why my name is down to a proposed new Clause which would have the effect of reducing the 40 per cent. to 30 per cent. I am not quite convinced by the argument of the Minister as to the sacrifices that the landlords have made in the last few years. We have to remember that during those years their property has been let and that they have been quite certain of their rent for the whole of the time. As compared with other people with money invested, they have had a safe and certain return over the whole of the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They never had any empty property.

Mr. ESSENHIGH: The property may not have been empty, but the rents have not been recovered.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: This Bill gives the landlord permission to continue the permitted increase of 40 per cent. How long are they to be permitted to charge 40 per cent.? There is nothing in the Bill to say that there should be a lowering of rents. We beg the Minister to reconsider his position on this point. I was not struck with the argument that the average increase of wages is above what is said to be the figure for the cost of living. I have always held that the cost of living figure was somewhat of a myth, and I am very doubtful as to how it is calculated. Take the City of Bradford, where rates have gone up to 17s. 4d. this week from 16s. 8d. Under the old assessment they would be 30s. in the pound. In this calculation it is very doubtful whether the figures can be said to be perfectly correct. The question of
rent is a vital one. Many people have been on unemployment pay and have been asked to make sacrifices. At the last General Election the unemployed man gave his vote for the reduction of unemployment pay, and he is entitled to ask for some reduction in his rent. I wonder at times whether the hon. Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) does not, in his excitement, damage his own case. I am not concerned with the particular type of landlord about which he speaks, except to see that he has justice.

Mr. LOGAN: Never mind how I put my case; you put yours.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I would like the Minister to reconsider this question and try to meet us. If he cannot go as far as the 20 per cent. asked for in this Amendment, we should be satisfied, so far as we are concerned, with 30 per cent.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I expected that the Minister would reject this Amendment. I propose to try to meet the two-fold case which is the only case that I have heard put forward against it, namely, the case that, in the first place, all landlords are under special restrictions, and as such are entitled to this increase; and, secondly, that, if it were not for these restrictions, property, on an open market, would fetch considerably more. I grant at once, because it is undeniable, that landlords have been and are under restrictions, but the State always has certain classes from time to time under restrictions. Let me take the case of labour. The general theory in this country is that working people are allowed to withdraw their labour from time to time and force wages up as high as they can. But the State from time to time says that it will not allow certain classes of workmen to do that, because they are in a different category from other classes of workpeople in the country, and, consequently, large numbers of workpeople who could from time to time use a certain weapon are not allowed to do so because of that difference. For instance, the civil servant is not entitled to use that weapon, because the State says that he is of a different type, and the State has a right from time to time so to order its affairs if it wishes to do so.
The same thing is true with regard to property. It is altogether wrong to say that you can argue about property in the same relationship as about any other commodity. Even if there were no shortage, property is in an entirely different position. Even if there were no shortage, and there were a fair number of empty houses, once a person enters a house he is not in the same position in which he would be in buying, say, clothes. He can change his tailor by a sweep of the hand, but, once you enter a house, you cannot shift about from time to time. Apart from the question of the number of empty houses, you have to judge from the point of view of the family, from the point of view of access to school, and the husband's access to his work; and the consequence is that the relationship in regard to property is different from that in regard to any other commodity. Therefore, the State comes along and says, in regard to the sale of property, that a certain increase shall be put on.
I do not want to argue now on the question of wages, but in 1920 the House of Commons thought that a 40 per cent. increase would meet the demand of the landlords; it thought that that was an adequate return for him to get. Now, in 1933, the House of Commons is asked to review the increase that it granted in 1920. To my mind, there is no doubt that the last speaker was absolutely sound on one point. Broadly speaking, the landlord is faced with two considerations, if not three, which formerly he had not to face. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Essenhigh), who interrupted just now, said that in some cases the rent was not recovered, but I venture to say that the amount of un-recovered rent now, as compared with pre-War days, is very small. We used to have in the West of Scotland numbers of cases such as we hardly see now. They were called "moonlight flits"; a person shifted out of his house during the night. That kind of thing has been practically abolished now in the West of Scotland. I do not say that there are not people who do not pay, but, comparatively speaking, that has gone. It has gone for two or three reasons. One is the difficulty of getting other accommodation. A second is that the standards of the family are such that they do not
think that such a thing should be done. Lastly, there is the power of the landlord to enforce the decisions of the court, even in other houses. The consequence is that that type of thing has disappeared.
Again, as compared with pre-War days the amount of unlet property is infinitesimal. As regards the question of repairs, even the Marley Report admits that the amount of repairs now being done is entirely unsatisfactory. Why do not the landlords carry out repairs? Because they do not need to do so—they can get their houses let almost without doing repairs. We are faced here with the fact that a set of people are being asked to pay a rent that they cannot afford to pay. Many people, who are living on unemployment benefit or very low wages, are being asked to meet a rent that they cannot possibly meet, and suffering is being inflicted on those people which the House of Commons has no right to inflict. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) was twitted for using an argument about political motives, but the House of Commons does not think itself so "uppish" that it never considers political motives. Every one of us considers political motives from time to time. Even Cabinet Ministers do so, as will be seen when the question of taxing the co-operative societies comes up. They have done so, and will do so again on a host of subjects from time to time, and quite rightly, because political considerations are merely the considerations of an intelligent public trying to get the power that is vested in the Government to respond to the public will. There is nothing wrong or unfair in that, and, of all considerations on which at the present time a demand is made, the most important is this question of rent.
The last speaker thought that this Amendment went too far, and would have limited it to 30 per cent., as against the 20 per cent. asked for in the Amendment. We have an Amendment down, on which I hope we shall be able to get a vote—we do not intend to speak on it if we can secure a vote—in which we ask for the wiping out of any increase at all. Every other section of the community is now sacrificing far more than this section. Take the people who invested their
money in the Post Office Savings Bank. Throughout the War years, members of the working class who invested their money in the Post Office Savings Bank received their 2½per cent., and ever since the War they have received their 2½ per cent., while during that time they could have obtained 6 per cent. for their money. During all that time these people, chiefly belonging to the working class, have never asked that the interest on their investment should be increased—

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Does not the hon. Member realise that anyone who had any money in the Post Office Savings Bank could have withdrawn it and invested it at a higher rate?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I know, but an appeal was made to them to do it voluntarily, and, surely it cannot be argued that, because people do a thing voluntarily, they are to be treated differently from those who are compelled to do it?

Mr. SMITH: The hon. Member has not forgotten the War Savings Certificates?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): We cannot, on this new Clause, argue questions relating to the Post Office Savings Bank.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I was dealing with the point that that section of the community was voluntarily making sacrifices throughout those years. There is no denying that they could have got more. You will not tell me that they did not do it for the benefit of the State. During the War a soldier earned a particular wage and he could have demanded more but for the fact that he was engaged by the State. Will anyone tell me that the soldier, who underwent terrible sufferings, did not do it for a wage which, if lie had used his economic power, he could have enhanced? Years afterwards in the boom period civil servants and others could have demanded increases if they had taken advantage of their position. This rent increase is an intolerable burden, and it ought not to be forced on the people. Some of the property which will be affected in Glasgow is 100 years old. If you take an average period, it is no exaggeration to say that the age is 50 years and the tenants are paying rents which have been increased by 47 per cent. We think it is a very moderate request that that should be reduced to 20 per
cent. We shall certainly vote for the Clause, and we hope we shall be allowed to vote for our own Clause to reduce rents at least to the 1914 level.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: The Minister of Health said that among the things that have been taken into consideration was the justice of the case. I am not prepared to challenge that, but justice as it appears to the right hon. Gentleman may be different from justice from our point of view. We desires to weigh in the balance all the advantages as between the landlords and the people who require the houses that are in the control of the landlords. The Measures which have been brought into being to deal with the housing shortage number, I believe, about ten, and they were brought in to cover emergency circumstances. I think the right hon. Gentleman used the term the overriding circumstances of the time. Shortage of supply was the determining fact which brought them into being during the period of the War. We are simply suggesting that, if you had to meet the overriding circumstances of War, you are entitled to meet the circumstances which have been created as a result of the War. We cannot forget that these Acts were restrictions upon the greed of landlords, who saw a fine opportunity and were preparing to take all the advantage they could of it until you had to step in because you deemed it to be a national necessity to control them. It is equally a national necessity to reduce the advantage which has been given to the landlord for, I think, 11 years. I have listened to the statement of Ministers about fluctuations in the cost of repairs. When I hear these statistics, I remember the definition given by one who is regarded by hon. Members opposite as an authority, namely, Sir Josiah Stamp, that a statistician is a gentleman who is brought in when your own figures can neither stand up nor lie for themselves.
We must bear in mind that fresh types of people are being brought into unemployment as month passes month. I am not making any special plea for grades in society, but there is no shutting one's eyes to the fact that there are people now being affected by unemployment who are finding it very hard to keep the position in regard to houses that they previously kept. Some regard has to be paid to the
anxiety and worry that attaches itself to large numbers of persons who, it was previously thought, would not be undergoing the turmoil of unemployment. People in overcrowded houses are prevented from going elsewhere and even a little respite in the form suggested by the new Clause might be helpful. With regard to Glasgow, the datum from which we start, namely, 1914, is not a very desirable one, because for a good number of years prior to 1914 those in control of property there pursued a policy which was creating a shortage of houses and that was taken advantage of to increase rents. I am sometimes asked by tenants in St. Rollox what rent I think they should be paying for their houses, and I would challenge anyone to accompany me into some of those houses and say what they think would be a fair rent to pay for them. As a matter of fact, what has been said with regard to the complete withdrawal of the increase would be justified.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: I have felt a sense of disappointment at the speech of the Minister of Health. I understood and admired the way in which he put the statistical reasons for disagreeing with this Clause, and I say quite frankly to the hon. Members responsible for it, that the figure which they are asking is not the exact figure for which I myself would ask. In my opinion the Clause to be moved later in the name, among others, of my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) approaches justice more nearly. We ought not to forget that in the matter of housing and rent we are dealing with a very special subject. The Minister admitted it, and made it one of his pleas for the rejection of the Clause. He said that owners of house property had been treated by the State as a very special class, that special sacrifices had been asked from them as a result of housing shortages, that they had lost great profits which they might otherwise have made, and that the proposed permitted increases in the Bill were to some extent to be a compensation for the sacrifices which they had had to undergo in times when the cost of repairs was much higher than it is now.
Those facts are undeniable as facts, but I do not think that they are undeniable as reasons. Rent and housing come under
a very special definition. Housing shelter is the first requirement of all human beings. The State has a. very special responsibility for it, and has accepted and assumed rightly in the post-War years a very special responsibility for it. Secondly, we must not forget that to people of small incomes, and particularly to those who are unfortunate enough to be out of work, rent is the most formidable item in the household budget. It is so formidable that sometimes it must stagger the imagination of those who do not have to deal with household budgets of that size. It is not only the size of the rent itself, but the recurrence of the payment week after week. The impossibility of getting round it and the impossibility of substituting anything but a house for a house—all those things put the weekly rent in a very special category of the burdens which the poorer section of the community have to bear.
We must not forget, in passing, the origin of the present House of Commons. It came into being at a time when sacrifices in the national interest were being called for from all sections of the community, and all sections of the community with a very remarkable unanimity responded to that appeal. I think that a Government which calls itself, with justification, a National Government, because it does in fact represent very diverse views in its composition, if it is to retain any justification for that name, should make a special effort to deal with the question of rent. There have been cuts in unemployment pay, cuts in the pay of the servants of the State, cuts in the return upon War Loan, and numerous cuts in all directions. Life has become harder for all sections of the community. It has become intolerably harder for the poorest, and among the burdens they have to bear the burden of rent is by far the most formidable. The Government, having undertaken so great a responsibility for rent and for housing, cannot argue that it must deal with this question of rent restriction on an ordinary contractual basis any longer. If it saw fit to fix the present increase at a time of grave crisis, in war time, at the present time, also a very special crisis in the lives of many of our poorer fellow subjects, it has an equal right to meet their case with special measures again. I would most sincerely ask the Minister if he
cannot at a later stage give us some indication that he will make some concession, even if it is not the concession asked for by hon. Members opposite.

10.21 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I do not know whether I can appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on this new Clause. We have had a very full discussion. Hon. Members will recall that we have an understanding to come to an end of the Committee stage at a reasonable hour. There are many interesting new Clauses still to be debated. In the interests of the Committee in the use of its own time if we could come to a decision on the Amendment now, it would leave us more time for the other Amendments.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I do not desire to detain the Committee very long. We have had expressions of opinion from all sides of the Committee supporting to some extent the new Clause that we have moved. It is true that there is a difference of opinion as to whether the permitted increase should be 20, 30 or 40 per cent. The fact that the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendment leads to the conclusion that the Government are deliberately supporting the landlord element. They certainly have manifested a deliberate class bias in favour of the landlord class as against the tenant. There is hardly a grade of labour in this country to-day that is not down upon pre-War conditions. The miners are paid just about an equivalent of their pre-War rate, apart from the question of the cost of living. The same thing almost applies to the railwaymen and to all grades of the main key industries of the country, and there can be no case for the landlords receiving 40 per cent. in addition to the pre-War rent, which they stated at that time to be an economic rent. We would not agree that it was an economic rent in those days. There was an enormous shortage of houses in pre-War days and the landlords extracted substantially large rents for the houses in those days.
For the Government to agree that the 40 per cent. must continue until 1938 and from that date forward, and perhaps in any case so far as they are concerned to continue in perpetuity, is a grave injustice to the millions of people now living in controlled houses. We have made
appeal after appeal to the Minister and we wonder whether it would not be possible for the supporters of the Government to support the Amendment. One of the hon. Members for Sheffield agreed not exactly with the terms of the Amendment but that there should be some reduction. After all the sacrifices demanded from the country, whether in unemployment pay, in wages, or salaries since the present Government came into office, the time has arrived when the Government ought to press the landlords by enacting that they shall be made to pay at least some contribution towards the economies of the country.
I wonder whether hon. Members opposite made pledges to the electorate at the last election on this matter? I know that in my constituency, and probably in many more, questions were asked and answered in relation to this subject and, unquestionably, it is the clamant demand of millions of people. There can be no justification for the continuance of this 40 per cent. increase on the pre-War rents when wages and salaries, which are related to the cost of living, are now back almost to pre-War level. This class has exacted an enormous tribute from the people of this country. It was purely an emergency measure. Undoubtedly the cost of living was high, but since that time wages in the mining districts have been reduced by more than 50 per cent., actually 54 per cent., and the wages of railwaymen, which are governed by the cost-of-living scale, have been brought nearer to pre-War level. The same applies to all grades of labour in the key industries of the country. We, therefore, appeal to the Government to accept the proposal.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I make no apology to the Committee for continuing the Debate. We have had no concession at all from the Minister of Health; yet he has the brass face to appeal to us to give him a concession while we, who have been appealing to him all day, have not got one little concession. The right hon. Gentleman rises quite confidently at that Box and suggests that, seeing he has been such a nice kind christian gentleman, we should give him a little concession. He will get no concession from me. May I thank the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. H. Johnstone) for his contribution to this Debate. What did
the Minister of Health say when he rose a few moments ago? He said that we were dealing with an exceptional state of affairs. That is true. We are dealing now with the most serious thing which affects the lives of the great mass of the people—rent. If the Germans had won the War, they could not have inflicted upon our folks anything worse than is now inflicted by those who own the homes in which our people live by the manner in which they have increased rents. The greatest bugbear of working-class life to-day is to know how they are to meet the demand for rent. As the hon. Member for South Shields has said, to his everlasting credit, because he does not know what it is to be up against it, and all the more credit to him for the speech he has made to-night, the first charge on the household budget is the rent. They starve in order to pay their rent. The great desire of everyone is to have a home of their own, to have a roof over their head, and they will do everything they can to retain it. That is the subject that is under discussion now.
The Minister states that it is an exceptional state of affairs and that we should see that the property owners get a fair deal. I ask the Minister of Health and the House to remember why this subject comes before the House at all for discussion. It is because the individuals who own the homes of the people took advantage of the people when those people were up against it during the War. They raised the price of the homes when they had no right to do so. The statement by the property owners at the time was that when profiteering was abroad in the land they were going to have a share in the swag. But the houses they owned were not produced in abnormal times when the cost of material and labour was enhanced. These houses were built before the War, and there was no justification for raising rents other than a desire to take advantage of the country at a time when it was fighting for its life.
That is what the property owners did, and we were forced on the Clyde to take direct action. We went on strike. We gave the Government and the country the choice either of meeting us with reasonable demands or they would not get the shells. That was the situation.
[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the lives of those in the trenches?"] What about the lives of those who were at home and those in the trenches When a test case was brought and you sent up Lord Hunter, we had 200 cases before the Rent Court in Glasgow, and of the tenants in those 200 cases no fewer than 180 had either brothers or fathers fighting on the bloody fields of Flanders. Talk to me about the boys who were in the trenches ! We always stood by the boys in the trenches. The workers on the Clyde did so. And the profiteers are here now to take advantage of the boys that were in the trenches. We always stood by the boys who were in the trenches and we are standing by them now.
Wages have decreased, and the Minister says: "Even suppose they have, why should we ask for further sacrifices on the part of property owners?" Every section of the community has been asked to make sacrifices, even Cabinet Ministers—who would have believed it?—never mind Members of Parliament. All have been asked to make sacrifices. It is beyond me and it has always been beyond me why this section of the community should get preferential treatment. I have shown what they did when the country was up against it, and my statement is irrefutable. [Laughter.] I like to see hon. Members opposite laughing. A minute or two ago an hon. Member referred to my colleague the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan), because he got a bit excited when discussing this matter. I wish the well-fed and well-dressed gentlemen opposite would go and live in the same locality as the hon. Member for the Scotland Division. They would then know what we are here defending. They do not know anything about it now, and cannot understand why we get a bit excited and make desperate attempts to defend the folk whom we represent. The Minister said that repairs are expensive and that 40 per cent. is not too much. But I want to remind the Minister that the property owners do not carry out the repairs. Yet rents were never paid better than they are being paid to-day, [Interruption.] Never mind. If you want to be insulting, I can be as insulting as anybody.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it would be better if hon. Members addressed the Chair and not each other.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Thank you for that word Captain Bourne.
It nerves my heart, it steels my sword.
I was speaking about repairs, and I want to tell the Minister of Health that landlords do not do the repairs. Before the War, before we had this legislation, they did certain repairs. Remember that this legislation had to be introduced to protect the people. There was no rent legislation before the War. This legislation was put on the Statute Book to protect the poor from these landlords and property-owners and the Minister now suggests that we ought to give them a square deal and that we ought to deal gently with them. Before the War, in Scotland at any rate, they did the internal repairs and decorative work. They whitewashed the walls in the ordinary artisan house, the two-apartment house. The poor labourer had only a one-apartment house consisting of a room and a kitchen. They papered the walls of the room, and as regards the kitchen the tenant got a line from the factor to go to a painter and get the paint and he did the painting himself.
Those were all matters that cost money, but since the War not a single factor in the West of Scotland pays out that money They only keep within the law, and all the law of Scotland says is that the property-owner must keep the house wind and weather tight. That is all the length they go, and indeed, as I am reminded, they do not even go that length. The Minister also said that in 1920—an unfortunate date for him to quote—the cost of repairs was 180 per cent. That is true but workers' wages particularly in the West of Scotland were up 200 per cent. That was the peak year for wages. Since then what a change has taken place. The engineer—my own trade—has had his wages reduced from £6 down to £2 17s. 6d., and that is for those who are working, but we have 38 per cent. unemployed, and they are reduced to £1 2s. 6d. and all that that means. The standard of life has been lowered in keeping with that. Their wages have gone down from £6 to £2, on the average, and surely we are not asking too much when we come forward with this proposal—we who believe in our inmost being that we
are asking only a fair thing when we ask that the whole increase in rent should be removed.
We believe that that would be only justice, but in order to remove all the arguments that could be brought against us, that we were asking too much, we thought we would try this Minister of Health, who has quite a good reputation in the Labour party. We thought that by putting forward this mild Amendment we would get this concession. We have removed the idea that would be brought against us that, if we had tried the Minister with something less, we would have got it, but that we went too far in asking for all the increase to be removed and therefore got nothing. Now we have used all the powers we could, with such eloquence as we possess. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] I know hon. Members would give all they have for the same eloquence. We have tried to put before the Committee our actual experience, and we have tried to get the Committee to realise the terrible conditions under which our own folk live. Never mind India. This House goes into ecstasies about India, and Russia, and Germany—any place but here. This House is always interested in those abroad, and we are going to move Heaven and earth to defend four or five men in Russia and may well go to war over it, but here we have tens of thousands of our own folk, of our own kith and kin, of the poor whom we asked to defend this country in the last war, to defend those homes in respect to which they are not able to meet the demands of those who own them.
My last word is this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] Hon. Members would like me to stop, but I am just getting into fettle. I am asking the Committee to remember something else which is very serious. We have not only to consider the increase of rent, but the increase in rates which it carries with it. Rents now are of such a character that while prior to the War in the West of Scotland the workers paid on an average one-twelfth of their incomes in rent, to-day they are being asked to pay one-quarter. It is ridiculous to expect that that can be met. Surely too much rent is being asked now. Is it too late in the day for the Minister to get up and accept this mild Clause? He has been appealed to from every side of the Committee. I
am sure, that if the most hardened Tory went into a working-class area and saw the conditions, he would understand the terrible nightmare of the poor women and the mothers of the working-class who have a harder struggle to spend the money than the men have to earn it. The mothers of the working class are having a terrible struggle to maintain body and soul; they have to struggle as with a steel band, trying to get the ends to meet, but the ends never meet and are eternally bursting open. These are the conditions that prevail. It is on behalf of those folk that I appeal to the Minister of Health to give us this small Clause. If he does that, it will be a credit to him, and he will do something to justify his existence.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I desire to associate myself with the proposed new Clause, which is perfectly reasonable. I do not expect the Government either to accept it or to give any modification. I realise that the Government are a property owners' government, and that every house factor, landlord and sheriff's officer in the country has backed them. They are members of political organisations which they have backed and financed, and which have given the Government their energy at election times, and they expect the Government to operate laws and Bills in order to grant them the highest standard of rent which it is possible to extract from the working class. Realising that, I do not expect any concessions in any shape or form that would materially affect the interests of those who are behind the Government as a political force. There may be a case to be made out for some properties that were built at the time of the high cost of building, but there are houses which are a disgrace to a boasted civilised society. We have in the Glasgow area houses which, if the authorities were performing the task they ought to perform, would result in the owners being prosecuted for attempting to get rents for them.
We talk in this House about six men in Russia who may be in danger, as the Secretary of State said, of losing their lives, and the House gets into a state of passion because of them, but by your every action you extract the last drop
of blood from every individual in the community in order to keep your class with its standard of comfort, while you grind the working classes down to the bottom of the social ladder. I cannot understand the ideas or the mental outlook of Members of this House who attempt to make the people believe that they are indignant because of danger to the health and life of six citizens, when they go on by systematic methods grinding the poor into their graves, into mental institutions and to the very utmost depths of poverty and despair. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] I hear an hon. Member say "Rubbish." I often hear this hon. Member with his sarcasm in this House in relation to working-class interests, and to me he is an individual who does not live in a world of reality but is a living man dead from the shoulders upwards who does not realise the problem of the working classes in any shape or form.
Let me give a typical example. I had a letter from a constituent of mine who pays 7s. 6d. rent for a small single-apartment house. That woman, with her husband, five children and another child expected in only two months time and with a boy who has returned after two years and two months in Rob Royston Hospital—although down in the very depths of poverty and despair, is being asked to pay a rent of 7s. 6d. for a house, the rent of which only 20 years ago was 2s. 9d. per week. Yet we are expected to sit in a docile manner like robots when an individual of this character, who realises nothing concerning the lives of the common people, pours his scorn, wrath and indignation upon working-class representatives who seek to represent truly the people who elected them to this House. We realise that in regard to these houses there are differences.
I go round with school teachers and sanitary authorities in the city of Glasgow to many of the houses for which increased rents are being paid. I went into one in the division of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and we discovered a little house where you had to bend down under the stairs to go through a doorway that led you into a small room which had been used as a washing house. The old boiler which had a fire under it was covered with wooden planks and here was living an
old man who was sleeping four feet below the ground surface. There was water running from the walls, and not a single inch of ventilation and he was paying 6s. rent. The property was 235 years old. The original rent for the average room and kitchen in the house was 1s. 3d. per week, and they are paying as high as 8s. 6d. and 9s. for houses of that character at present.
I went to other areas where there were nine houses in a corridor with something like 54 adult persons living in these nine houses, using one common lavatory with an entry that had never seen paint for almost 20 years. Every window at the stairhead was broken and had been boarded over. Yet the authorities allow in a place of that sort in the city of Glasgow, rents to be charged of that character. I know something about the conditions of the common people in relation to houses. There is not a single house of the old pre-war character in the Shettleston Division in which I have not worked in the plumbing line. From my boyhood up to my manhood I have gone systematically through every house, in different employers' businesses and on my own for 15 or 16 years in the plumbing line, and I say that your stables for racehorses and your public lavatories are palaces compared to the homes for which you are expecting people to pay these increases of rent for.
We come to this House, without apology in any shape or form, and say that if there is to be equitable economy all over the country the landlords ought to be asked to contribute something to the national well-being. Why should they be allowed to go on charging for houses of that character? The Government connive at a system which gives these increased rents to men who are not entitled to them. Prior to the War tenants could go into houses in the month of March and have them rent free until the 28th of May, and in addition the landlords would paint and paper the room and kitchen and the bathroom and paint the outside doors—just in order to get the tenants. I have seen tenements in which three only out of 12 houses were occupied. Since then the law of supply and demand has operated, and to-day the houses are all occupied, and though the wages of those who inhabit the houses have gone down and down this selected section of the profiteer-
ing class is being allowed to retain their high rents. No Minister of Health and no Government can put up a defence for that state of affairs.
Germany has, since the War, given three decreases of rent to the working class, had three rent reduction Acts, so that as the incomes of the people were depressed by cuts and reductions in wages and by unemployment they were to that extent relieved of the burden of rent. Here, since the War, the returns from property have steadily gone up. The losses which landlords previously had to bear through tenants quitting their homes in the dead of the night, because they could then move from one house to another, have disappeared. Tenants are now tied down to a house, with no opportunity of changing. They have got to pay up or get into the street or into the workhouse. The working class are held by the throat by the property-owning section of the community in the most ferocious manner. The Government, I know, will perpetuate that system. I say, frankly and openly, because I believe it to be true, that they are doing to death thousands of children who are unable to get the nourishment and the ordinary decencies of life because of the portion of the income which is extracted as rent from working class budgets. We are compelling them to contribute the lion's portion of the income as rent.
You apply the means test, you make reductions in salaries, in every way you go on making reductions, and we have to keep this class whose hands are dripping with the blood of working-class children. We have to go on maintaining them in their comfort and their serenity. The Government come forward with these Bills to keep faith with those behind them, these brute beasts of the jungle who control the means of life, who dictate to the Government. The Government are not free, and Ministers are not free, to make their policy. They are the servants, the puppets, the robots of those who are behind them, who control property and control finance. I shall be quite frank to-night. I make no appeal to the Minister. I realise that he is only a representative of that class in this country and has got to do his duty. He is paid so much per month or per year for carrying out the orders of the ruling
class, but I can conceive of the time when the working class will come along and they will take possession of your houses, and of the means of life, and they will usher in a decent standard of society in which human comfort, happiness and health will be the most valuable assets and will be the first claim upon the community. You can, go on extracting your high rents, but one of these days

you will be shaken from your slumber by the awakening of the working class, and by their combination of brain power and energy they will displace you by a humane, civilised and Christian system of society.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 241.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Possession or ejectment without proof of alternative accommodation.)

12.25 a.m.

Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 12, line 9, to leave out the words "the court considers it reasonable so to do if."
If hon. Members will look at this Schedule they will see the words:
the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom without proof of suitable alternative accommodation.
The first argument I wish to put forward for leaving out these words and leaving the case to the discretion of the court in the specified instances set out, is that it is the subject of alternative accommodation that gives rise to questions of opinion which a court would have to deal with with discretion. No doubt it may be said by the Minister that there are other cases which are open to some doubt, and where the court ought to have jurisdiction to say whether they are to carry out the specific intention of Parliament to give the right of obtaining re-possession under certain conditions set out in the Schedule. The Government may say there are in some of these cases conditions where discretion ought to be left to the court. I want to call the attention of the Committee especially to paragraph (h), which deals with the case where possession is required by the owner for occupation as a residence for himself, or his son or daughter, or his father and mother. In many cases a landlord is the owner of only one house and wants possession of that house for his own occupation. Obviously, in all cases in which the owner wants actually to occupy a small house left in control when this Bill becomes an Act, he is not a great owner of land and house property. It is in that case particularly that I want these words omitted. I think owners of these small houses who have been waiting in some cases for 13 years or more to get posses-
sion of their houses want to know definitely, whether they have the right to get possession of their own houses and occupy them, or not. As long as these words are left in, and it is a question the court may or may not decide as a reasonable ground for which to grant possession, there will be no certainty that they ever will get possession. It is on behalf of these small house-owners who have been waiting a very long time to get possession of their own houses, that I specially want to plead. Since I took up this question several years ago I have been inundated with correspondence from all parts of the country. I will give the Committee one instance, the case of a schoolmistress who saved from the small salary paid in pre-War days just enough to allow her to acquire the ownership of one little house to live in herself. She has been unable to get possession. Take the case of railway servants, arriving at the age of 65, in occupation of houses belonging to the railway companies. They have saved up, and provided themselves with houses, because they cannot occupy the railway companies' houses when they retire, but they cannot get possession of the houses which they have bought. Take the case of a widow who owns one of a row of little houses which was left to her. They are not particularly attractive, but she wishes possession of that one of them that she may live in it. She cannot get possession. In such cases it is not a matter of diminishing the supply of houses. It does not matter to the total supply of houses whether the owner or a tenant occupies a particular house. The owner ought to have the right to occupy his house without the jurisdiction of the court. He or she ought to have the certainty of being able to occupy his or her own house. What I have said covers the three Amendments which I have on the Paper, although, with regard to the proviso, I shall have just one word to say on the special matter dealt with in it. That is the general ground on which I ask the Minister to remove these words. They are totally unnecessary, and throw a doubt in every single case on the genuineness of the right of the owner to have possession of his property.

12.33 a.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am sure the Committee will recognise the assistance which
it has received from the hon. Baronet in dealing with his three Amendments together. It is not a case of not giving very mature consideration to the matter which he has now raised. The matter has already been decided by the Committee on Clause 3 of the Bill, in connection with the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, which he supported by a similar line of argument, and to which I replied. It is not a fact that we must distinguish on any reasoned grounds between the three classes of cases in which possession is sought—the lapse of the tenant, the need of the landlord, or the grounds of the alternative accommodation. They raise exactly the same kind of consideration of fact and law in all these three cases. If the equitable jurisdiction of the court is desirable in one case, it is impossible to deny its desirability in the other cases. The equitable jurisdiction of the court is a necessary part of the machinery of the Bill. When you have an intricate and rather arbitrary law relating to human circumstances and conditions, you must have an elastic joint, and it is the equitable jurisdiction of the court which adds that elastic joint. Under the provisions of the Bill the court may give possession in a case where it is reasonable, and we cannot refuse it the power to refuse when the case is unreasonable. Possession will be greatly facilitated by the provisions of the Bill, and I hope that the Committee will come to the conclusion that the matter should stand as it is.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.35 a.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to move, in page 12, line 16, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that where under the contract of tenancy the rent is payable in advance the tenant shall not be held to be in arrears until the period for which the rent is payable in advance has expired.
I do not know what is the practice in England, but it operates very harshly in the West of Scotland. There they take people to the courts for arrears of rent, and they make it appear that they are two months in arrear when they have paid a month in advance. It is most unjust because the workers do not get paid a month in advance, not even when they go to the Employment Exchange. They do not get benefit at once. The workers have often to work for a week or a fort-
night before they get paid. The landlord can, however, hold them for a month's forehand rent. For a month when they have not been in the house they are asked for forehand rent. The sheriffs say that this is harsh, and one of my colleagues, a councillor, has written to the Lord Advocate appealing to him because she has been up against it in the courts. The sheriffs tell her that they have no option in the matter but to administer the law. The law is very harsh and operates very harshly against the poorest of the poor. I hope I have said enough to show the Minister that we are asking a very reasonable thing here.

12.37 a.m.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: I want to say a few words to the Lord Advocate. This Amendment is important because there are tenants who occupy houses on monthly leases. The custom' in most parts of Scotland is for the tenants to pay weekly or monthly in advance. The object which we have in view, and which I hope will be favourably considered by the Government, is to provide that in the event of a tenant being summoned to the court for ejection, the ejection order will not be granted on the grounds that the tenant is in arrears when, as a matter of fact, he has paid a month's rent before going into the house. It is an anomaly which, if clearly understood by hon. Members on both sides of the House, will have their favourable consideration. I hope the Lord Advocate w ill be able to assure us that the Government are willing to accept the Amendment.

12.40 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I should like to say that the position is even worse in Glasgow than the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) has described in regard to the West of Scotland. In Glasgow they are actually demanding a quarter's rent in advance. This is a shocking practice which has only lately grown up in Glasgow. Tenants are being asked in some cases for a quarter's rent in advance. In some cases they have to pay five or six pounds in advance. I was at the sheriff's court the other day in connection with the case of a woman who had to pay six pounds rent in advance. Illness had overcome some of the family and she could pay only one month in advance, but the landlord insisted upon a full quarter's rent. The sheriff, in effect,
said that he would only enforce a month, but the woman had to pay the legal expenses for having come to the court. This is a problem that is getting very acute. Poor people who pay their rent regularly feel it very much. It is said that the landlord is entitled to be treated as any other owner of goods, but I do not know of any other owner being paid in advance. I hope the Lord Advocate will accept this very modest Amendment.

12.43 a.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Hon. Members have raised in my view a point which merits very careful consideration. The rent payable by tenants of this kind of house was what was known as backhand rent which was payable by the tenant after he had enjoyed possession of the house of which he was tenant. Within recent years there has crept in a system which is known as forehand rent and whether the tenant takes the house for a month, a week or three months he pays rent in advance. Take the illustration of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) where before possession is enjoyed the tenant pays the rent. This, no doubt, is a matter of contract, and, as the Amendment stands on the Paper, there would be an obvious difficulty in accepting it because it lays down that, where under the contract of tenancy the rent is payable in advance, the tenant shall not be held to be in arrears until the period for which the rent is payable in advance has expired.
I do not think it is there that the grievance lies. The grievance is that where a tenant finds himself through misfortune or any other reason unable to pay he may be summoned forthwith in a civil action for the rent and for ejectment. It is perfectly true that in practice sheriffs do not grant a decree and, to that extent, no great harm is done, but the harm comes in this way that a bill of costs is brought against the tenant, and the costs are added to the rent for the purpose of computing arrears, and in many cases I fear that tenants get more deeply into difficulties as time goes on. I have officially seen a number of these cases within the last year, and I am in sympathy with the idea underlying the Amendment, which is purely a Scottish problem. If hon. Members will not press me to-day, I will endeavour
between now and report to devise some means whereby these bills of costs cannot be taken into computation in reckoning arrears. I have received a great many representations on this subject, and I hope that with this assurance hon. Members will not press the matter further.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I accept that statement of most sympathetic consideration from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.47 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move in page 12, line 16, at the end, to insert the words:
and the tenant refuses to pay on order of the court a reasonable proportion of the arrears of rent within a reasonable time and continues to break the obligations of the tenancy.
I move this Amendment in order to make certain what the position is under the Bill. I hope that Members will not think we are constantly forcing our position on the House, but the position in regard to rents is very acute. Our Amendment is merely to safeguard the rights that exist. As I read the Schedule, it means that the court have no option the moment a person falls into arrears but to grant a decree. The present practice is that the court gives the person a number of chances of making up the arrears, and we want to see that the tenant is given a reasonable chance of meeting the arrears before any decree can operate.

12.48 a.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I understand the anxiety of the hon. Member, and I can tell him that the discretion of the court is left absolutely untouched by the present Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.49 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 12, line 29, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that the court before making such an order shall have allowed the tenant reasonable time and opportunity for removal or avoidance of what was the subject of complaint.
This Amendment is intended to deal with the case where the tenant is unfortunate enough to lose possession, and we ask that the tenant should be allowed a reasonable time and opportunity for removal or avoidance of what was the subject of complaint. All we are asking is that where the court decides that there is a grievance, the persons should be given a reasonable time in which to rectify it. We are assuming that the court has come to the decision that the landlord is entitled to proceed against a tenant for a particular grievance, and we think a reasonable time should be allowed.

12.51 a.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think this point is covered by the answer given to the previous Amendment. The present law is not affected by this Schedule. The court already has power to exercise its discretion in cases where the tenant proves amenable and offers to remove the particular grievances of which the landlord complains.

12.52 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I know that is the procedure, but we are asking that before the court's decision can operate, the man should be given a reasonable time in which to rectify the matter. As it stands now, it is a question for the discretion of the court, and, if a man shows a desire to rectify it, the court should give him time. I do not see why the man should not be given say a week or a month. The court would still have the discretion as to the time to be given and we think it should be obliged to give some time.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Then you would be laying down what the court should do, and it would destroy the equitable jurisdiction of the court if you put it into an Act of Parliament.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, all we are saying is that the court should give the man time. The discretion would still remain with the court as to the amount of time to be given. All we are saying is that, if the man offers to put right that which is complained of, the court should
give him reasonable time. If the court feels that the man is making a frivolous defence, it could give him only a day or two. It should at least give the man time, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will undertake to consider the point.

12.53 a.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: This is a very serious matter. When the sheriff gives an order for ejection it operates at once. It does not matter whether the tenant is prepared to meet all the demands that the factor has formally made. The factor may refuse to take any money or anything else. He has the right to eject at once. That is too much like sudden death. Something may happen. Illness may arise. You are dealing with a class of society who are dependent on what the merest breath of adversity may in a moment dispel, and they have nothing to fall back upon. If anything happens to the breadwinner or somebody in the house is required to have something more than, the ordinary means of maintenance, or if there is sickness and they have to send for the doctor, all that has to be paid for, with the result that they fall behind with the rent, and they have no means of raising the wind. They are taken to court and the sheriff has to administer the law. No matter how sympathetic he may be, he is bound to give the factor what he wants, namely, the house and the power to eject.
The result is that the factor gets that power and can put it into operation at once, although in the interim some friend may have turned up and have given the man £1 or £2 to get him out of the difficulty. The factor has the power to say: "No, I do not want your £2. I would not give you the house for £20. It does not matter what you do; I have got an order and the house is required, and out you go." That is far too harsh, because you are dealing with something that is an extraordinary commodity, namely, the home. It is not like anything else. It is not as though the evicted person could simply walk into somewhere else. There is nowhere else that they can go. All we are asking is that the sheriff shall have power to give them, say, a week or so to find somewhere. As the law stands, it is sudden death. They have to be thrown out on to the street at once. I hope we have made the case clear
enough. We have an opportunity here to make the law more humane. When we go to the sheriffs and speak to them, they say: "Well, that is your boys' job. You are the legislators." They have said to me time and time again: "We have got to administer the law and you are the legislators. The first time this comes up, try and get it altered." Here is the opportunity, and I hope the Minister will receive us in a sympathetic fashion and will give a sympathetic answer.

12.58 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have no wish to press this if the Parliamentary Secretary will say that he is prepared to consider the matter between now and the Report stage. If he will say that, the matter may be agreed upon. We are only asking that the person should get a chance, and we are not anxious to delay the Committee.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I can give no pledge in the matter, but I will certainly consider the point.

Amendment negatived.

12.59 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page I2, line 40 at the end, to insert the words:
at a rent exceeding that paid to the landlord.
We desire that possession should not be granted where it is proved that the sub-renting was not done at a profit, even though it may have been done without the consent of the landlord. We think in many cases it may be shown that very poor people sublet part of the premises by taking in other unemployed people like themselves out of sheer decency and make no profit, and, where they do not charge a rent exceeding the rent which is ordinarily paid to the landlord, possession should not be granted. Everybody in this Committee has been down on sub-letting in cases where a profit has been made, but here we are saying that possession should not be granted, even though the sub-letting is done without the landlord's consent, provided no profit is made.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The words in this Sub-section have been the law for the past 10 years. They are simply repeated here, and there would
be no advantage in accepting the Amendment. Sitting sub-tenants are still protected, and there is really no advantage in introducing the element of profiteering into the question of sub-letting. It is inherent in the principle of the Act that if the tenant gets rid of the whole of his tenancy he ceases to be protected against the landlord. The sub-tenant is protected until he in turn gives up possession. We are here simply re-declaring the existing law, and I must resist the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

1.2 a.m.

Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 12, line 40, at the end, to insert the words:
(e) Possession of the dwelling-house is required by the owner for the purpose of rebuilding the property in accordance with a scheme for the rehousing of the working classes approved by the Minister of Health.
I move this Amendment on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), who cannot be here to-night. It is an Amendment to enable a greater and more rapid advance to be made in providing the class of house with which this amending Bill deals. The object is to enable a landlord to obtain possession without providing alternative accommodation, in order to rebuild on the site and provide premises to re-house working-class people in accordance with a scheme approved by the Minister of Health. Such a power is urgently required as regards the large amount of urban land which is ripe for re-development but cannot be made available because there may be one or two sitting tenants of old cottage property who cannot be got rid of. There are valuable building sites now occupied by small worn-out houses. In Millbank there is a very large scheme now being carried out for which a private Act of Parliament had to be obtained. It is a scheme by which a large number of the working class can be re-housed. All this Amendment does is to put other places in a position to carry out similar schemes without going to the expense of a private Act, and where perhaps the area of land to be dealt with is smaller and would not justify that expense, so that building development cannot be held up on account of one or two small tenants. On the Portman Estate there is a scheme
which is being held up exactly in this manner, and which would be able to be proceeded with at once if this new paragraph were inserted in the Bill. Generally speaking, in present conditions urban building is at a standstill owing to the difficulty of the landlords in getting possession of one or two small houses.

1.5 a.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am sure the Committee would agree with the hon. Baronet as regards his object, but the Amendment is unnecessary for this reason. I think it has perhaps escaped his attention that the new conditions in the Bill will provide a means of meeting all the difficult cases to which he has referred. Formerly, it was quite possible that a plan might be held up by the necessity for obtaining possession of one or two houses. Now, with the new provision that possession can always be obtained if there is alternative accommodation provided, cases of that sort cannot recur. All that is necessary in the re-development of an estate is that some part of the estate should be devoted in advance to the construction of some houses, either council houses or houses of an equivalent type, which correspond to the definition in the Bill of alternative accommodation. They then become available for tenants of that sort to whom the hon. Member has referred, and since that accommodation is available a recalcitrant tenant will not be able to hold up a scheme. For these reasons, I believe the Bill provides a practical means of getting round all the difficulties to which he has referred, and the Amendment is not necessary.

1.7 a.m.

Sir B. PETO: In these circumstances I -beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I would like to point out to the Minister that in the case he has referred to it is rather like the old game of the fox and the goose. It is difficult to know which is going to move first.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1.8 a.m.

Sir R. ASKE: I beg to move, in page 13, line 11, to leave out from the word "the," to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words:
overcrowding is due to any lodger or subtenant that the tenant has not taken such steps as he ought reasonably to have taken
for the removal of such lodger or subtenant, and that suitable alternative accommodation is available for such lodger or subtenant.
This Amendment relates to paragraph (f), by virtue of which the court has power to order the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of overcrowding. This is a new provision, and is one of considerable importance in overcrowded areas where there is no possibility of tenants getting any alternative accommodation if they are ejected from their present houses. It is of particular importance to areas such as the Tyne, where at least one-tenth of the families live in homes consisting of a single room. The Minister has justified the course he has taken in resisting many of the Amendments which have been discussed in this Bill on the ground that the matters were dealt with by the Report of the Departmental Committee. This is a matter which is not justified by that report. As I understand the report, the Departmental Committee definitely turned down the provision which now appears in this Bill, specifically reporting against any extension of the cases such as the rest of those which are included in the First Schedule. I therefore make that as my first ground of approach in asking the Minister to deal with it on that footing. I do not know whether the Minister is expressing his sympathy towards this Amendment. I do not wish to occupy the time of the Committee if the Minister is favourably disposed towards it.

1.10 a.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I think that the hon. Member's Amendment does tend to bring out in clearer distinction the underlying intention of this Clause. I would propose to express agreement with the principle of the Amendment now brought forward and undertake to consider the actual wording before the Report stage, if that will content him at this stage. It was never contemplated that possession should be claimed where it was not reasonably possible for the tenant, or even for the landlord if he obtained possession, to do so without hardship to the sub-tenant or lodger.

1.11 a.m.

Sir R. ASKE: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is a substantial matter and, unless safeguarding words
are inserted, it will continue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. D. GRAHAM rose—

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that if he insists on speaking the Amendment cannot be withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1.12 a.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 13, line 15, to leave out paragraph (g).
Hon. Members will observe that the effect of this Amendment is to concede to the agricultural labourer, and perhaps to the miner for that matter, but particularly the agricultural labourer, the same protection as has been given since 1920 to other tenants. As soon as an agricultural labourer is dismissed from employment he is a trespasser and can be evicted from his house, in the case where a man employed by a farmer is living in a house really necessary for his employment. The farmer in that case has a special privilege to turn him out without providing alternative accommodation. Another case is where a farmer wants to get rid of an agricultural labourer. He has merely to apply to the county agricultural committee, obtain a certificate, go to the county court and get rid of the man almost immediately. We think that this lack of protection for agricultural labourers has left them in all parts of the country with a grievance. The Departmental Committee made recommendations that the same protection should be given to the agricultural labourer as was given to other tenants in the country. Paragraph (g) of Schedule 1 preserves the law as it is, leaving the agricultural labourer without any sort of protection, if he lives on the premises, say, as a horseman, and pays no rent. Such a man the moment he is dismissed, whether justifiably or otherwise, can be regarded as a trespasser and put on the road.
In the case of a man who lives in a house which is owned by a farmer, or the owner of an estate, the farmer need only, if he wishes to get rid of him without the provision of alternative accommodation, to inform the county court judge that some other person has been engaged on full-time employment with the provision that housing accommodation should
be provided for him. The man can then be turned out without alternative accommodation. Where a man lives a mile or two away from the farm, the farmer, if he wishes to get possession of the house has to go to the county agricultural committee, satisfy them that some other man has been engaged, and by taking that certificate to the court it is almost a gilt-edged security that possession will be obtained in the shortest possible space of time. The agricultural committees are largely composed of farmers, and the obtaining of a certificate for the eviction of any tenant is a very simple process.
We do not think that is fair, and neither did the Departmental Committee which sat quite recently. This practice has, in fact, been in operation and has acted very harshly to the agricultural labourer particularly at a time when the number of employés on farms is being reduced. We think it is an injustice to the labourer on a farm who ought to have the same protection as the average tenant. I shall not expand the argument to deal with miners, of whom tens of thousands are living in tied houses. I shall confine my argument to the agricultural workers, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that they not less than other persons are entitled to the protection of the rent restriction law. I hope the time has arrived when the agricultural labourer may enjoy that protection. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that nothing short of a housing policy is necessary to carry it out, and that a large number of new houses must be erected in rural areas, then it is the duty of the Government to see that these houses are built and that agricultural labourers are not turned out on to the street. I know the case of a man who was born in a house, and lived in it for 49 or 50 years, and was then turned out into the street. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel that such workers should enjoy the privilege others have enjoyed for so long.

1.19 a.m.

Mr. TINKER: I want to support this Amendment and to ask the Minister to give consideration to it. Earlier in the night the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) put down an Amendment which was resisted by the Minister as impracticable. I am
surprised to find in the Schedule power to the same effect without alternative accommodation. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment has dealt with the agricultural labourer, and I should like to mention the miner who also is affected. I hope the Minister will consider this matter from the point of view that we put to him that, if the Act is to be amended, the Schedule should be amended as we desire.

1.21 a.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment spoke as if the only people affected were the agricultural labourers, but it applies to all tied tenants. We have already refused an Amendment designed to enable a landlord to get possession of a tied cottage merely because he wanted it for another employé. This paragraph in the Schedule is simply a re-statement of the law that has been in force for the last 13 years, and we are not prepared to accept the Amendment.

1.22 a.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask the hon. and learned Member whether because it has existed for 13 years the law is unchangeable. While I commend him for not having accepted the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) which simply placed the landlord and farmer in the position of turning out people for no reason whatever, does he not see that there is still a great deal of justice in the case which we have put forward. All we ask is that the same law that applies to other tenants should apply to the agricultural labourer and the miner when he is no longer in the employ of the landlord, and that if the landlord requires possession of the house he should provide alternative accommodation for the labourer or the miner. May I appeal to the Solicitor-General between now and the Report stage to consider the matter. After all what has been in existence for 13 years is not necessarily right. I hope he will see the point in the Amendment that we have put forward.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'and,' in line 21, stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 27.

Division No. 145.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Banfield, John William
Halt, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Bernays, Robert
Harris, Sir Percy
Milner, Major James


Briant, Frank
Hirst, George Henry
Owen, Major Goronwy


Buchanan, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Price, Gabriel


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rea, Walter Russell


Davies, David L, (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, William James


Dobbie, William
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
White, Henry Graham


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mi. D. Graham.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cranborne, Viscount
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Crooke, J. Sinedley
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Apsley, Lord
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hales, Harold K.


Atholl, Duchess of
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Atkinson, Cyril
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hanbury, Cecil


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hanley, Dennis A.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Donner, P. W.
Harbord, Arthur


Balniel, Lord
Drewe, Cedric
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Duggan, Hubert John
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Dunglass, Lord
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Eastwood, John Francis
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Edge, Sir William
Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Walter


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Blindell, James
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Horobin, Ian M.


Borodale, Viscount
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Browne, Captain A. C.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Burnett, John George
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Jennings, Roland


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Carver, Major William H.
Gledhill, Gilbert
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Glossop, C. W. H.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Goff, Sir Park
Knebworth, Viscount


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Goldie, Noel B.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Clarke, Frank
Gower, Sir Robert
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Graham, sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Leckie, J. A.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Graves, Marjorie
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Conant, R. J. E.
Greene, William P. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Copeland, Ida
Grimston, R. V.
Liddall, Walter S.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Patrick, Colin M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Peat, Charles U.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Penny, Sir George
Soper, Richard


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Percy, Lord Eustace
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Petherick, M.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Stevenson, James


McKie, John Hamilton
Pike, Cecil F.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Potter, John
Storey, Samuel


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Magnay, Thomas
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Strauss, Edward A.


Maitland, Adam
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Martin, Thomas B.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Summersby, Charles H.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Remer, John R.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Milne, Charles
Robinson, John Roland
Thompson, Luke


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Morgan, Robert H.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Morrison, William Shepherd
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Weymouth, Viscount


Moss, Captain H. J.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Munro, Patrick
Salt, Edward W.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Nail, Sir Joseph
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Newton sir Douglas George C.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Savery, Samuel Servington
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Scone, Lord
Womersley, Walter James


North, Captain Edward T.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Nunn, William
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)



O'Connor, Terence James
Shute, Colonel J. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Lieut.-


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Palmer, Francis Noel
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)



Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 146.]
AYES.
[1.24 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Petherick, M.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Peto, Sir Bash E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pike, Cecil F.


Apsley, Lord
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Holdsworth, Herbert
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Atholl, Duchess of
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Atkinson, Cyril
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Balniel, Lord
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rea, Walter Russell


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Bernays, Robert
Joel, Dudley J, Barnato
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bracken, Brendan
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Broadbent, Colonel John
Liddall, Walter S.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Llowellin, Major John J.
Ruthertord, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Savery, Samuel Servington


Burghley, Lord
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Scone, Lord


Burnett, John George
Mabane, William
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Carver, Major William H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Castlereagh, Viscount
McKeag, William
Soper, Richard


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
McKie, John Hamilton
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Maitland, Adam
Stevenson, James


Conant, R. J. E.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Cooper, A. Duff
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Strauss, Edward A.


Copeland, Ida
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cranborne, Viscount
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Martin, Thomas B.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tate, Mavis Constance


Dalkeith, Earl of
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Davies, Maj. G. O. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thompson, Luke


Duckworth, George A. V.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Morgan, Robert H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Morrison, William Shephard
Warrender, Sir Victor A, G.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Fox, Sir Gilford
Munro, Patrick
Weymouth, Viscount


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Gledhill, Gilbert
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Glossop, C. W. H.
North, Captain Edward T.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Glucketein, Louis Halle
Nunn, William
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Goff, Sir Park
O'Connor, Terence James
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Gower, Sir Robert
Palmer, Francis Noel
Womersley, Walter James


Graves, Marjorie
Pearson, William G.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Greene, William P. C.
Peat, Charles U.



Grimston, R. V.
Penny, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Lambert Ward




and Dr. Morris-Jones.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Buchanan, George
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Milner, Major James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William



Dobbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. John.

1.33 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 13, line 21, to leave out from the word "and," to the end of line 25.
The principle of this Amendment will probably be answered in much the same
terms as the last Amendment. We are asking that the tenant mentioned in the Schedule should be allowed to remain in his house until alternative accommodation is provided. We think that is essentially a humane demand. Surely
the man has suffered enough when he has lost his job without having added to it the loss of his house as well. We therefore think that the Government should accept this very fair and reasonable Amendment, for otherwise we intend to divide against them.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This Amendment is covered by my hon. Friend's remarks. As the hon. Gentleman has said he intends to divide on it, I will say no more.

Mr. MAXTON: Does that mean that because we have intimated our position,

the reply is the same as it was on the bigger demand?

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I have handed in an Amendment to the Amendment. Is it not going to be called?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment bas not been selected.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 27.

Division No. 147.]
AYES.
[1.35 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Pickering, Ernest H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Pike, Cecil F.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Apsley, Lord
Heilgers, Captain F. F, A.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Aske, Sir Robert William
Holdsworth, Herbert
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Atholl, Duchess of
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Atkinson, Cyril
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rea, Walter Russell


Balniel, Lord
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Jesson, Major Thomas E,
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Bernays, Robert
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Bracken, Brendan
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Brass, Captain Sir William
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Liddall, Walter S.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Scone, Lord


Burghley, Lord
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Burnett, John George
Mabane, William
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D,


Castlereagh, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Soper, Richard


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
McKeag, William
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
McKie, John Hamilton
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stevenson, James


Conant, R. J. E.
Maitland, Adam
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Cooper, A. Duff
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Strauss, Edward A.


Copeland, Ida
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cranborne, Viscount
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Martin, Thomas B.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thompson, Luke


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale.
Wallace. Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Morgan, Robert H.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Weymouth, Viscount


Fox, Sir Gifford
Morrison, William Shepherd
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Munro, Patrick
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Gledhill, Gilbert
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
North, Captain Edward T.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Goff, Sir Park
Nunn, William
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
O'Connor, Terence James
Womersley, Walter James


Gower, Sir Robert
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Graves, Marjorie
Palmer, Francis Noel



Greene, William P. C.
Pearson, William G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grimston, R. V.
Peat, Charles U.
Sir George Penny and Sir V. Warrender.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Petherick, M.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
Milner, Major James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Daggar, George
John, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dubbie, William
Leonard, William



Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Duncan




Graham.


Question put, and agreed to.

1.44 a.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I beg to move in. page 13, line 26, after the word "satisfied," to insert the words:
by a statutory declaration of the landlord, or his duly authorised agent or.
This and the following Amendment are 'alternative procedures to the rather cumbrous method of obtaining a certificate from the agricultural committee or the Minister of Agriculture which have been referred to by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). It is rightly laid down that in a case where an owner wishes to get possession of his house for an employé it should be made perfectly clear that it is for a genuine employé and that there is no desire to cheat the law. I have never understood why it was suggested that the agricultural committee was the appropriae authority to grant a certificate, because it certainly now does not come within their scope. It is a cumbrous and tiresome procedure, and it is suggested in these Amendments that either a statutory declaration should be made by the owner, or that the court should satisfy itself what form of evidence it wants. I suggest that it would save a great deal of trouble to everybody concerned. The temptation to evade the law now much less than it was, owing to the fact that when this Bill passes into law houses so obtained will not be decontrolled, and suitable penalties for making a false statutory declaration are already provided in other Acts. I suggest that the rights of the tenant will be safeguarded under either of these Amendments, and a good deal of expense saved. I am quite indifferent which of the Amendments the right hon. Gentleman prefers, but I would like some simplification of the procedure.

1.46 a.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I do not propose to accept either of the Amendments. The hon. Member is opening his mouth too wide, which is perhaps not unnatural at
this time of night. The Amendment I have already accepted goes as far as I think is reasonable in the direction the hon. Member desires. Where an estate owner or landlord has a cottage which is already in the occupation of an agricultural employé, the procedure recommended in the previous Amendment is reasonable. The effect of what the hon. Member now proposes would be to extend the facilitation for decontrol of houses already in the occupation of an employé of the owner, to all cottages in the occupation of a controlled tenant which he has acquired. Where the landlord has acquired possession of a controlled cottage in possession of a controlled tenant, I do not think it would be reasonable or desirable that we should still further facilitate the means of obtaining possession by the purchaser of the cottage. In particular, I do not think it would be right that we should do away with the necessity of obtaining a certificate of requirement for agricultural occupation from some outside authority who could put some sort of check on the actual requirements. The hon. Member says: "What an inconvenient authority," but there is no other which is more convenient. Under these conditions, I think we have gone far enough in facilitating re-occupation of agricultural cottages by the owners, and we ought not to give further extension which he now proposes.

1.49 a.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I am sorry the Minister thinks that I am opening my mouth too wide, and I do not want on this occasion to open it too often. This Amendment does not further facilitate obtaining possession by owners. It merely makes the necessary certificate less awkward to obtain. I do not think the matter is of sufficient importance to carry to a Division, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

1.50 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: I beg to move, in page 13, line 34, to leave out from the beginning to the first word "for" in line 37.
This is a matter which does not affect the owner of a large number of houses. It affects only the owner who needs a house for his own family. It is hard lines on the man owning a house, and needing it for his own occupation, if he is not able to get possession. I do not see any reason why a man should not buy a house at any time in the future, as in the past, and obtain possession.

1.51 a.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The advancing of the date to 1931 is in favour of the person owning a house. At present any landlord who bought after 1924 would be unable to obtain possession. We have put in extra relatives, and we have accepted the recommendation of the Committee that the date should be advanced. It would not be right to go further, because a landlord might deliberately buy after the recommendation was made for the purpose of getting possession for his mother or father. He would be enabled to take an unfair advantage of the recommendation.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND TROYTE: This is only in the report of a Committee, and there is no reason why we should not alter the date in an Act of Parliament.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: Captain Cunningham Reid—

Sir B. PETO: I have an Amendment—in page 14, line 1, to leave out from the beginning to the end of the Schedule. I gave notice that I wished to raise a particular point, although I did not wish to make a speed"

The CHAIRMAN: That Amendment has not been selected because the point has been covered by previous discussions.

Second Schedule (Consequential and minor amendments) and Third Schedule (Enactments repealed) agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Certificate as to state of repair.)

Where the sanitary authority are satisfied that any dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply is not in a reasonable state of repair it shall be the duty of the authority to issue a certificate to that effect if application for such a certificate is made by the tenant of the dwelling-house, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, such a certificate shall not be refused if a notice requiring the execution of works in, or for the benefit of the dwelling-house has been served under section seventeen of the Housing Act, 1930.—[Mr. Peat.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. PEAT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Clause puts an obligation upon the local authority to issue a certificate to the tenant if in their opinion the property is not in a reasonable state of repair. It also imposes a further obligation on the local authority to issue a certificate if it has made an Order under the Housing Acts that the property is not fit for human habitation. It would
seem that the practice of local authorities varies very considerably. The only criticism which, I presume, could be raised to the Clause is that it does not go far enough. Some may say a landlord should only be permitted to make an increase in rent if he holds a certificate, but that is impossible to put into practice for the very good reason that the staff available for inspecting houses would not be there. The only other criticism perhaps would be that the certificate should be issued automatically to the landlord at the same time as it is issued to the tenant. This, again, is impossible because of the subtenancy which exists in many cases, and which makes it difficult to find out who is the landlord.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It is obviously right that the tenant should not pay in respect of repairs that are not done. The Government accept the Clause.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Cessation of application of Acts to certain dwelling-houses.)

(1) Where the landlord of a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts, as amended by this Act, apply executes in the prescribed form a deed of covenant with the district council, borough council, county borough council, or Metropolitan borough council hi whose area the dwelling-house is situated, the principal Acts, as amended by this Act, shall cease to apply to the dwelling-house.

(2) The prescribed form of covenant shall provide that, for a period of not less than ten years, the dwelling-house (or, if the dwelling-house is demolished, a dwelling-house or houses erected on the same site, or another site approved by the council, within one year of the termination of the last tenancy before demolition) shall be available to be let as a dwelling-house at a rent not exceeding the permitted rent applicable to it under the principal Acts at the time those Acts ceased to apply to it, or at such higher rent as the council may approve, and shall not be converted to any other use without the consent of the council.—"[Lord E. Percy.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.14 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The real difficulty about all rent restriction legislation is how to devise any method of preparing for the decontrol of the houses concerned. This Bill registers the breakdown of the attempt to secure some gradual decontrol of controlled house property. That, it seems to me, leaves the state of the law and the state of the policy in a very serious position. You are always in this dilemma. If you have no gradual system of decontrol, as under the previous Acts, if you allow the decontrol of vacant premises, you merely throw on to the market in small quantities a particular commodity, a decontrolled house. The price of that commodity—the rent of the decontrolled house—tends to rise because of the shortage in the supply. On the other hand, if you ever contemplate a moment of complete decontrol without any gradual decontrol leading up to it, while you throw on to the market a great mass of houses, the rents of which will consequently tend to fall, yet the very size of your operation will tend to create tremendous dislocation and hardship which this House, and any Government which is in power, will always try to revoke. We have always seen the fear which has moved this House even in
decontrolling the Class "A" houses, where there has been a very considerable addition to the supply in the last few years.
My contention in the proposed new Clause is that there should be some system of gradual decontrol which retains control over the amount of the rent but which gives the landlord power over his tenant and a limited power over the user of the house. I propose in the new Clause that the landlord should be enabled to enter into a deed of covenant with the local authority by which he would covenant to continue to charge no more than the permitted rent for a period of years longer than the period of restriction provided by this Bill, but, in exchange for that covenant to keep the rent of the house down, he should acquire the power of dealing with the house and of improving his house property as long as he did not change the user of it, and kept it as a house to be let to persons of the working classes; and in addition, he would acquire the power, where the house was old-fashioned, of replacing the house as long as the house which he built in replacement also was restricted to the same user, except and in so far as the local authority might consent to a change of user.
I know that the general scheme of gradual decontrol has been decided upon by successive committees, including the committee on which I sat some 10 years ago. Committees are not infallible, and all our experience of committees is that they tend to be frightened of any new proposals. It is true that any proposal of this kind is open to the objection, "Oh, the landlord will always find means of getting round his covenant. He will always find means of extracting key rent and so on." So far, no committee has ever considered the possibility of the landlord entering into a contractual relation with the local authority, so that the landlord would run the risk, if he was caught in any such underhand dealing, of having all his house property re-controlled as a penalty. If an additional guarantee were required it would be possible in such a covenant to exact from the landlord a compulsory deposit against an infraction of his covenant.
It will be observed that in the new Clause where I lay down certain provisions which shall be contained in the
covenant, I leave it to the Minister to prescribe the form of the covenant, and he might add any restrictive conditions of that kind that he might please. I realise all the objections to the proposal, but I do ask the Committee, and especially those Members who believe that control of rents by the Government by statutory enactments must in the nature of things be a temporary and emergency measure, to consider whether the time can ever come when you will be able, politically, to throw the whole mass of these houses on to the market, without any sort of control, in one dollop. If you cannot do that, if you do not foresee the time when this House is ever likely to take that step, it is essential to look ahead and to devise some form of gradual decontrol. The evil of rent restriction, especially in present times, with the fall in the rates of interest, is not the restriction in the amount of the rent and that is why I should have no objection in a Clause of this kind to prolonging the period during which the landlord will be bound to exact no more than the permitted rent without the consent of the local authority. The real evil of the system of rent control—no matter how many provisions you may insert in a Bill for allowing the landlord in certain circumstances to do repairs, re-condition, and so on, or to obtain possession—is that you prevent the improvement of house property by the landlord, except in extreme circumstances. You create an enormous amount of hardship among tenants by the process we are acquainted with in every agricultural village of the widows of tenants staying on in commodious houses while young married people urgently desire sufficient accommodation in decent cottages. You prevent that redistribution of housing accommodation in a humane way which is one of the essential interests of every district in the country, you prevent improvement, you prevent the flexibility which is necessary in order to enable existing housing accommodation to meet the needs of the population. I would ask the Government very seriously to consider my proposal, novel though it may appear, even though it may have been rejected in some form by a previous committee.

11.24 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: With much of what the Noble Lord has said I think we shall all find ourselves in agreement. I must express my appreciation of the great care and ingenuity with which he has adapted his scheme to the conditions he desires to meet although, as I shall endeavour to show, it is not infrequently the case that one tries hard, as he has tried, to do what is perhaps in the nature of the case impossible. I agree with his analysis of the situation, although perhaps it was not correct in his reference to Class "B" houses. As regards the future, the noble Lord says, "When will you ever be able to decontrol by this Bill?" Surely, we shall be able to decontrol any class of house of which there is an adequate supply. Just as we have control because the supply of houses is inadequate, when the supply is adequate to meet the demand we shall be able to decontrol.
Let me deal with the Noble Lord's scheme for gradual decontrol. There are great difficulties of machinery. In the first place in order to avoid the danger that the decontrol of the actual tenancy may be used as an instrument of oppression the Noble Lord calls in the local authority. I do not think that the local authority can discharge that function effectively. You would make them a partner with the owner in all these houses and under conditions which would prevent them exercising their functions effectively. From the point of view of the ratepayers the amount of labour which would be involved would be hardly commensurate with the results achieved. There is another objection from the practical point of view, and that is that it is clear that the new Clause, even if we adopted it, would be inoperative, but I cannot see landlords as a whole agreeing to a very considerable reduction of their rights and advantages which it would entail without any commensurate return, They would have to lose control for 10 years instead of five, lose some of their rights in regard to Class "B" houses and also be subject to the obligation of reletting any Class "C" house whenever it fell into vacant possession. I feel that the scheme would be inoperative, but I do not lay stress on its practical disadvantages.
I lay stress upon this point, that the new Clause errs against the fundamental
principle of rent control in the interests of the tenants. It is the fundamental principle of rent control that the actual tenancy shall be protected, not only the house—and I admit that the Noble Lord's scheme maintains the house—but the tenant as well, and the Noble Lord's scheme does not protect the tenant. It is a cardinal principle of these Acts that you shall protect the actual tenant, give him protection, and if for any reason he is obliged to leave a controlled house you have to give him alternative equivalent accommodation. The new Clause would not give him alternative equivalent accommodation. That is a vital objection to it and must prevent the Committee accepting it now.

11.29 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: I notice that the Minister of Health does not lay too much stress upon the practical difficulties, and that his main objection to the new Clause is that the basic principle of the Rent Restriction Acts is to protect the tenant. I would reply that the basic principle has always been to control rents, to give security to the tenant only for the purpose of controlling rents. Until we return to that original principle, until we realise that what we ought to try to do in this legislation is to keep down prices which ought not to rise, so long shall we fail to return to a proper system of housing in this country.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Rectification of rent book.)

In any proceedings under Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of the Act of 1920, or in which the standard rent of any dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply is required to be determined, the court shall have power to order any party to the proceedings to rectify the rent book or similar document in manner prescribed by the order. If such rent book or document shall not be so rectified within seven days after the date of such order, no rent for the dwelling-house in question shall be deemed to accrue thereafter until such rectification shall be made.—[Sir R. Aske.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.31 p.m.

Sir ROBERT ASKE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this Clause is to give to the court the power of rectifying a rent book. There is no such power at the present time. In many areas the rent book is the certificate of character for a tenant on applying for a house, and if a rent book is marked down as in arrear the tenant has no chance whatever of obtaining a new house until that rent book is marked as clear. It very often happens that there is a dispute as to the amount of rent that may be owing. It may be that there is a dispute as to whether the house has become a decontrolled house. It may be that the house has changed hands several times since 1923, and in those cases a very great difficulty arises in getting the necessary evidence as to whether the landlord has or has not had actual possession of the house. I have had certainly 30 cases where a landlord has claimed that the house has become decontrolled. He has given the tenant notice to increase the rent, the tenant has disputed it, and in consequence the tenant has gone on paying the controlled rent. But the landlord week after week has marked up in the rent book the rent which he claims, and at the end of the year there is a large sum marked up against the tenant as in arrear. The result is that the tenant has no chance of getting another house. The effect of the new Clause would be that in any proceedings the court may order a rectification of the rent book.

11.33 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This is a useful Amendment. If my hon. Friend will not bind us to the exact form of words we undertake that suitable words will be put in the Bill on Report.

Sir R. ASKE: I am much obliged. In those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Exclusion of temporarily resident relatives from protection of Acts.)

(1) In the definition of the expression "tenant," in paragraph (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section twelve of the Act of 1920 there shall be added after the words "so residing as aforesaid" the words "and having so resided for not less than six months immediately preceding the tenant's death.

(2) This Section shall not apply in respect of any death occuring before the passing of this Act.—[Sir R. Gower.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.34 p.m.

Sir ROBERT GOWER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is designed to prevent an evil which has existed in the past, of relatives of a tenant who is about to die going to reside with him, and then after the lapse of a week or so claiming the benefits of the Act.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: This new Clause seems entirely within the spirit of Section 12 of the Act of 1920. Without committing ourselves to words we promise to incorporate some suitable Amendment in the Bill.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The question of "temporary residents" may become a very wide one. The term can hardly be defined. Most of us who come to the House of Commons are only "temporary residents." We come here for a time, and then pass on. I am opposed to any acceptance by the Government of the proposal in this new Clause. I think the principle underlying it is one which might be applied in a shocking fashion in some cases. I hope that the Government will not have any tinkering with it at all. The question of who are temporary residents may become a moot point, and I hope that the Government will keep the Bill as it is, and retain a safeguard which ought not to be lightly omitted.

Sir R. GOWER: Having regard to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the proposed new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 2 of the Art of 1923.)

The second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Act of 1923, shall hare effect as though the words "on the ground of non-payment of rent" were omitted therefrom.—[Mr. Tinker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope the Minister will be as generous in his reception of this proposal as he has been to the two previous new Clauses brought before the Committee. I wonder whether, in this case, we too will be lucky and will have at least one of our proposals accepted. The purpose of the new Clause is to retain in control a number of houses which would otherwise pass out of control. At present there are several grounds on which a landlord can get an eviction order, but, in the case of one of these grounds only, is the house kept in control when an order is made. If a tenant has not paid the rent and the landlord gets an order, the house in that case does not go out of control. But if the order is obtained on the ground that the tenant has been causing a nuisance, for instance, or has been using the house for a wrongful purpose, the house goes out of control. We ask that if an eviction order is granted on any of the grounds mentioned in the 1923 Act, the house should not thereby be placed outside control. The landlord is within his rights in getting rid of a bad tenant, but not in applying decontrol to the house afterwards. The Minister argues that we are sure to have houses well within the range of what are called controlled rents. If so, there is no reason why he should not accept our proposal. The fact that a house is not to go out of control where an eviction order is obtained ought not to make any difference. A case was made out earlier this evening for a reduction in the permitted increase of 40 per cent. on the rents. If there is anything in the Minister's point, in reply to that case, he should agree to keep as many houses as possible in control until 1938—and if, by that time, sufficient houses are available to meet the demand, I think everybody will be satisfied.

11.40 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid that this is not one of the lucky Amendments. It is impossible to accept it. It cuts clean across the whole policy of the Bill. At present "B" houses remain subject to gradual decontrol, but a "B" house is not decontrolled if the landlord gets possession under an order of the Court on the ground of non-payment of rent. If we took these words out, the result would be that the landlord would never get decontrol if he got posses-
sion by an order of the Court, for any ground whatsoever; in other words, it would reverse the whole policy on which the Bill is founded.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of local authorities to prosecute offences.)

The council of a county borough or county district in England shall have power to institute proceedings for any offence under the principal Acts or this Act.—[Sir H. Jackson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.41 p.m.

Sir HENRY JACKSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The provision to which this Clause refers is a penal provision. While it is open to anyone to take proceedings in regard to this matter, I think it will be generally agreed that if it is left to the tenant, there is very little likelihood, for obvious reasons, that proceedings will be taken. The difficulty has been that local authorities have been unable to spend money except on the authority of Parliament, and the object of this Clause is to make it clear that a local authority may institute proceedings and pay the expenses thereby incurred. I will not weary the Committee by citing the offences that might be dealt with, but some of them are of very great importance, and others are of a minor character. They are all very well known to the Committee and to the Minister.

11.43 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I propose to accept the Clause.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I should like to know if this Clause, before the Report stage, will be made applicable to Scotland as well.

Sir H. YOUNG: I will certainly consider the hon. Member's point, in conjunction with the Scottish Law Officers.

Clause added to the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: Lieut.-Colonel Gault.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. My hon. Friends and I have a new Clause
on the Paper providing for the repeal of the permitted increase of rent provision, and we thought we might have had on it the opportunity at least of taking a vote, without necessarily discussing the question.

The CHAIRMAN: That Clause has not been selected. I think I could give the hon. Member a good reason for that, but I would rather not do so.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: On the point of Order. There is a very big principle involved. As you know, Sir Dennis, it is the Clause which would restore rents to the pre-War level. We do not want to take up the time of the Committee in discussing it, but we think it is a big enough principle for the Committee to have an opportunity of recording its vote on the matter. My hon. Friends and myself recorded our votes against the Second Reading of the Bill because this principle was not included, but hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway here did not vote on that occasion because they regarded it as a thing that might quite well be dealt with in Committee, yet now we are told, on the Committee stage, that it is not to be selected. The power of selection lies with you, Sir Dennis, but having regard to the fact that this was the issue that brought a vote on Second Reading, I ask you if you cannot see your way to consider it of sufficient importance to give us a vote now.

Sir B. PETO: May I point out that the Committee has already decided this question to-night in that we have decided not to agree to a diminution of the 40 per cent. to 20 per cent.

The CHAIRMAN: I was going to tell the hon. Member that among the reasons why the Amendment was not selected was that the greater includes the less and that the greater question has already been decided.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Occupation of combined dwelling and business premises.)

Where any premises to which this Act applies are occupied by a tenant both for business purposes and for a dwelling-house the rating authority shall, if required, certify the rateable value of the part used for a dwelling-house separately from the part used for business purposes and the provisions of this Act shall apply to each separately.—[Lieut.-Colonel Gault.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.47 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time."
I venture to think that there are a good many Members of the Committee with whom I could associate myself who are opposed in principle to restriction except where it is absolutely necessary for the public good, but I fancy that all Members will wish to give the most complete equity of treatment to all those who come within such restriction. It is to that end that this proposed new Clause is aimed, namely, to give equity of treatment to that class of tenant of the combined dwelling and shop for whom no provision is made in the Bill, and of whom there are a great many in the cities and towns of the country. My right hon. Friend will doubtless remember that we have had some correspondence on this subject and that he kindly gave me the opportunity of personally discussing the point at issue with him. At this late hour I do not wish to detain the Committee a moment longer than is necessary, and I think that the best thing I can do in the circumstances is merely to present a concrete case in support of my argument. The case which I have in mind is that of a tenant of premises where the combined rental of a dwelling and shop comes to £39 per annum, which is a sum outside the protective classification of the Bill. If, however, he were assessed, as I venture to think he should be, on his dwelling and his shop premises separately, and his house were assessed at one-third of the total rental, which I believe is the usual basis on which such differentiation is made, it would bring him well within the scope of the "C" classification of protected dwellings.
In other words, if I may reverse the picture, if an occupier of a dwelling, assessed at £13 per annum, has to occupy a shop in the same hereditament, his dwelling gets no protection, whereas if his shop is in some other hereditament altogether, he gets the full protection accorded in the Bill under the "C" classification of houses. I understand that the chief objection to this proposed Clause is the classification which would fall upon the local authorities. I can assure my right hon. Friend that on the advice of a borough surveyor who has been consulted on my behalf, there is no
insuperable difficulty in making such a differentiation as I have suggested provided that the Minister is prepared to issue the necessary instructions and regulations. As this case of classification presents an anomaly in the general equity contained in the Bill, I hope that it will receive the general approval of the Committee and the acceptance of my right hon. Friend.

11.50 p.m.

Mrs. RUNGE: I desire to support the case which has been made for some such alteration as this in the Bill. Nine-tenths of the tenants or shopkeepers in the poorer industrial districts will be exposed to the risk of losing, without compensation, the goodwill of the little businesses that they have built up. All these shops for which I am pleading are small, and their profits do not exceed much more than £2 or £3 per week, and in many cases even less—and that is only as the result of unremitting work. The bigger shops can look after themselves. They are protected or will benefit by the Landlord and Tenant Act which protects any man who has a five years' lease. It is most exceptional for the small shopkeepers to have any lease at all. Most of them have a yearly agreement, and many only a monthly agreement, while a great many have no agreement at all except a weekly understanding. That is customary in the parts of London with which I am familiar, and I dare say in some other parts of the country. I know these small shopkeepers, and they have a very hard struggle for existence. Few of them are probably nearly as well off as those who buy from them. This is, therefore, no effort to protect the well-to-do. Many of these shops are one-man businesses or are run by their own people, and it is not too much to say that if you permit shop residences to be decontrolled without reservations, you will sweep away their livelihood. I therefore appeal most earnestly to the Minister to include this class in the Bill.

11.52 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: This is one of the most valuable of the new Clauses which have been put before the Committee, and I think it would be doing a great service to these poor people to make such a concession. The small shopkeeper is at present suffering enormously from the competi-
tion of the multiple shop on the one hand, and of the co-operative stores on the other. These small shops serve a very real and useful purpose in working-class neighbourhoods, because they are able to give credit from personal knowledge of the people in the street, while, of course, they are always ready to serve small quantities. Moreover, these particular people, if they are thrown out of work and their business is closed down, have no unemployment insurance, and they would inevitably have to go to the workhouse. I do think this is a very practical proposal, well drafted and well worded, and I hope the Minister will accept it.

11.53 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I would urge the Minister, before he is overwhelmed by this appeal from both sides in the interests of the small tenant of shops to remember the case of the small owner of a single shop who has purchased it, perhaps, with his life savings to enable him to get possession. Under this Bill now he has come to the conclusion that he will have a chance at last of getting possession of it. If this new Clause is accepted, that person will be excluded in favour of his tenant.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I hate to detain the Committee at this late hour. We have already discussed this point to some extent on a previous Amendment, but there is a problem to be solved. It is a problem of goodwill, in which there is a definite differentiation between the occupier of premises to live in and the occupier of a shop. Like the hon. Member who moved the new Clause, I have already addressed a number of communications to the Minister in the hope that somehow he and his advisers would be able to find some solution of this difficulty. I do not know whether we can be informed exactly how these people will stand under the Landlord and Tenant Act. On a previous occasion I appealed to the Treasury Bench, with their great legal knowledge, to tell us, because it is difficult for those of us who are not lawyers to find out what the law is. Two Acts govern these people, the Act we are now amending and the Landlord and Tenant Act, and if the small shopkeeper is to be coerced, as I think he may be, there is a really substantial case for con-
sideration. I have had communications from those who own premises in respect of which they have been deprived of a proper rent for many years, but, on the other hand, there is a power of oppression on the part of those who own such premises so long as the present shortage of accommodation exists, particularly having regard to the factor of good will in a business. I hope the Minister will be able to give some consideration to this matter.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We have given close consideration to the new Clause moved by the hon. and gallant Member, and I can assure him that, whatever its purpose is, it would certainly not be in the interests of shopkeepers for us to accept it. I do not know whether the Committee have realised it, but if the assessments were separate in the case of premises which included both a shop and a dwelling house the immediate effect of this Clause would be to decontrol the shop altogether. It is little benefit to a shopkeeper for his house to be protected, as in the case quoted by the hon. and gallant Member where there was a rateable value of £13, if he loses the protection for his shop, because the landlord could easily get rid of him by putting up the rent of the shop. And as regards "B" class premises the shopkeeper would be very much worse off under this Clause than under the Bill as it stands. The shopkeeper is protected both in respect of the shop and the dwelling house as long as he is there. Under this Clause he would, of course, lose the protection for his shop, and the bad landlord would be able to get him out by putting up the rent of the shop. In the interests of the shopkeepers I hope the Committee will not accept the Clause. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), I am afraid the question of the Landlord and Tenant Act is out of order in relation to this Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will explain the law if it is desired, but as far as this particular Rent Restriction Bill is concerned it does not apply at all.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary realises the nature of these shops. In many cases the
only access to the house is through the shop, and obviously the landlord could not let the shop unless he lets the house, and therefore even if they were separated the Rent Restriction Act would apply to the shop, because the tenant would still be in possession of the house and unless the owner could give the tenant of the shop the house as well he would never let the shop, because the tenant would have a right of entry through the shop. In those circumstances I do not think the hon. Gentleman's point applies. I am a little surprised that he suggested that it was out of order to make a reference to the Landlord and Tenant Act. If the protection of this Act is removed such redress as the tenant enjoys under the Landlord and Tenant Act will still exist, and therefore it is not out of order to draw attention to that Act, and I hope further consideration will be given to the matter.

11.59 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: In view of the fact that my new Clause is unacceptable, will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to submit a new Clause on Report stage covering the very difficult and serious position of these tenants?

12 m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am afraid it is a question of principle. If it were only a question of form and machinery we would do it, but from the reasons I have given it would be very much against the interests of the shopkeepers.

12.1 a.m.

Colonel GOODMAN: I wish to point out that there are many shops which are used only by the shopkeeper for business, the premises above being let to other tenants. If this is enforced, the tenants who have been living for many years above the shop will have their premises decontrolled. As they are perhaps paying small rents now, they should be taken into consideration.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Removal of restrictions on right to possession.)

Where a dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for some person engaged in his whole-time employment or ih the whole-time employment of some tenant from him or with whom, conditional on housing accom-
modation being provided, a contract for such employment has been entered into, the principal Acts shall, as from the date of the passing of this Act, cease to apply to that dwelling-house.—[Colonel Ruggles-Brise.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

12.2 a.m.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. May I ask for your Ruling on this matter, Captain Bourne. The new Clause moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, is an exact copy of paragraph (g) of the First Schedule. I would like to ask whether it is in order to embody, as a suggested new Clause, words which are already part of the Bill.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: The objection raised by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) does not apply. If he will look at the title of the Schedule in which the words appear, he will find that it is:
Possession or ejectment without proof of alternative accommodation.
That is to say, the words in the Schedule apply only where a landlord has had to go to the county court in order to recover possession. The placing of these words as a new Clause has the effect of putting certain premises completely outside the ambit of the Rent Restrictions Acts. Perhaps I have made that point clear now.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I have no objection to the hon. and gallant Gentleman submitting an argument for the Clause, but I should like to have your Ruling as to whether a mere repetition of words is in order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the effect of the new Clause, if it were incorporated in the Bill, would be quite the same as the words in the Schedule, which, incidentally, is not yet reached. The Schedule merely gives the right to obtain possession. The effect of the new Clause, if carried, would take these houses completely outside the operation of the Bill altogether. Therefore, no question of the right to certain conditions would arise. I do not think that the two are identical.

Colonel RUGGLE-BRISE: I base my argument in support of this new Clause
upon the Second Reading speech of the Minister of Health, and particularly upon one important sentence, in which he said:
It is recognised by all of us that we are working towards the goal of being able to get rid of the system altogether. That is the common goal, I should imagine."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1932; col. 48, Vol. 273.]
The new Clause goes a little way towards that goal. The effect of the new Clause is that certain cottages will go out of control altogether. Where a landlord or his tenant desires a dwelling house for some employé of his own, that dwelling house would be decontrolled. I submit that it is a reasonable step, and one in the right direction towards the goal desired by the Minister. As the Committee well knows, many absurd positions obtain under the existing law. I will merely mention the ease of a residence with two cottages attached to it. The tenancy somes to an end, and the tenant leaves the residence. His sub-tenants remain in occupation of the two cottages. The landlord himself may desire to occupy the residence, or he may desire to let it to a tenant, but in either case he finds himself deprived of the use of the two cottages, because they are already in the possession of employés of the tenant whose tenancy has expired and who has left the residence.
As regards the Schedule, I would point out to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that under the Bill as it stands the incoming tenant would be unable to get possession unless the sub-tenants of the cottages had ceased to be in the late tenants employ, and, supposing that that employment had not ceased, the position would be most anomalous. The late tenant of the residence might rent another house across the road, or might build himself a house just across the road, leaving his two employés in the cottages attached to the residence which he has just vacated, and this might well prevent the reoccupation of the residence, either by its owner or by some prospective tenant. That would be absurd, and would be very detrimental to the public interest, because, whenever a new occupation of a residence takes place, there is almost always a good deal of employment given in connection with repairs, painting, reconditioning, and so forth, and a residence might very well remain unoccupied
for the simple reason that it was not possible to give vacant possession of the cottages attached to it.
Again, take the case of a farm. When, there is a change of tendency, it is obvious that the new tenant farmer, on coming into the farmhouse, ought to be able to obtain vacant possession of any cottages attached to the farm; he will want them for his cowman, horsekeeper, and so on; but under the existing law he has first to get a certificate from the county agricultural committee, and then he has to go to the county court with the certificate before he can obtain possession. That is obviously a ridiculous position. The proposed new Clause will clear the whole position up, and I submit that it is a step in the direction of the goal mentioned by the Minister in his Second Reading speech.

12.8 a.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I regret that it is quite impossible to accept this Clause. As has been pointed out on the point of Order which was raised, these very words are in the Schedule to enable the landlord, in these circumstances, to get possession without proof of alternative accommodation. My hon. and gallant Friend's Clause would mean that, whatever the rights of the sitting tenant might happen to be, the landlord could simply say that he required the cottage, or whatever it was, for any of these purposes, and could automatically decontrol it at once. It is impossible to accept such a proposal.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: May I point out that that is not really the case? The Clause says definitely that it must be in the occupation of some employé who will be in the employ of either the owner-occupier or of a tenant from him.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. MAITLAND: I desire to support this Clause. I do not think that the Solicitor-General has given a substantial reason for rejecting it. It seems to me to be quite wrong to assume that people to whom this power is granted will use it in a wrong way. Why should we assume that people who take the trouble either to buy or to build houses for their employés desire to use those houses in
any way but one that is helpful to them in the transaction of their business? I think that, if such houses are owned by people in connection with their business, it is our duty to see if we can help them in carrying on their business. In one instance that I have in mind, the people in question are suffering under a great disability. I can give a case where a concern has 100 houses, 30 of which are outside their control. They would like them to house their employés. It seems to me that the Solicitor-General's reply has not covered the point of those employers who treat their employés, as most employers do in these days, with generosity and consideration. The question is worthy of more consideration than apparently has been given to it. I support the Clause.

12.11 a.m.

Mr. TINKER: In a matter like this I approve the Government's action. It seems to me that the Clause would give a colliery company, for instance, a full right to evict a collier whom they had sacked and a whole host of men could be pushed out of their houses. It would also mean that the men would have to accept lower wages and worse conditions because of the fear of being evicted from their houses. It is seldom that I agree with the Government, but they are right in resisting this Clause.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Compulsory rent-book statement.)

It shall be compulsory in every rent-book to show the standard rent in nineteen hundred and fourteen, with additions allowed and any increase for improvements.—[Mr. Mander.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. MANDER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this is to make clear in the simplest possible manner precisely what each tenant has to pay. There would be no particular difficulty about the owner ascertaining the required information, but there is very great difficulty often in the tenant finding it out and very often they do not know what legally they have to pay as rent. Many
owners take the gross rent in 1914, including rates, as the basis of the rent that they charge. There can be no doubt that a large number of tenants are paying more than they are required to do through ignorance of the facts. In many cases it may be that the owner is also ignorant of the facts. By making it statutory that information should be given in the rent book, a very real service would be rendered to large numbers of people who are doing what the Statute does not desire them to do and paying more than they need. Some rent books actually give a place for this information to be supplied voluntarily. There are other forms of rent book where there is no place for it. I believe it is suggested that the Clause in its present form is not altogether practicable and that the date is not always 1914. If that is so, might I suggest the addition of some such words as "or such date as may be appropriate."

12.14 a.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Government sympathises with the purpose with which the Clause is moved, but it is not practicable in its present form. The hon. Member says there is no difficulty about the owner knowing what the facts are, but there is a Clause in the Bill that was put in for the express purpose of getting over the difficulty in numerous cases where owners neither know nor can know what are the facts on which the standard rent is based. In order to comply with this Clause, they would have to go to court and get a decision under Clause 5. That will not do. But under Clause 8 we have power to make regulations, amongst other things, as to what is to appear in the rent book. Without committing ourselves to any form of words, it is designed to ensure that all reasonable information is, given to the tenant under that Clause.

Mr. MANDER: After the assurance-given by the hon. and learned Member that the Government do intend, as far as they can, to make use of their powers under this Bill when it becomes an Act, to give this information, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE.—(As to houses let at less than two shillings and sixpence per week.)

Where the dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply is let at a rent not exceeding two shillings and sixpence per week exclusive of rates, and such dwelling-house comes into possession of the landlord after the twenty-ninth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, the principal Acts with the exception of Section two (Permitted increases in rent) of the Act of 1920 shall cease to apply to such dwelling-house as from the date of the landlord taking possession.—[Mr. Beaumont.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

12.16 a.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause provides that where a house is let at a rent so low as not to be an economic rent it shall be decontrolled for the purpose of giving possession but shall remain in control for the purpose of rent. I am afraid that if the Bill goes through in its present form, when houses become vacant the temptation of landlords will be to hold them up, because the people who go in will be statutory tenants and they will not be able to get rid of them. I think this proposal is one which avoids a serious danger. If the Minister thinks my form of words is not practicable and is unable to accept the new Clause, I hope he will be able to deal with the point in some other way.

12.17 a.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I recognise the reality of the danger to which the hon. Member refers. This Clause has a very limited ambit. It refers only, in substance, to cottages used for agricultural and estate management purposes, leaves all the sitting tenants protected, and provides only a more convenient procedure than that under the Third Schedule. The hon. Member rightly says the Clause is not workable in its present form, but I am prepared to give consideration to the point he has raised.

Mr. BEAUMONT: In those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE—(Amendment as to rates compounding allowance.)

For the purposes of paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of Section two of the Act of 1920 the words "payable by the landlord" and "payable in respect of any period" shall be construed as meaning the full rates charged in respect of all houses for which the owner is for the first time liable for payment of rates under Section eleven of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, or under any Corporation Act passed since 1914.—[Sir S. Roberts.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

12.18 a.m.

Sir S. ROBERTS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I apologise to the Committee for moving a manuscript Amendment at this time, but the new Clause can be found in the shape of an Amendment, to Clause 10, in page 10, line 43, standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley). This new Clause is put down for the purpose of dealing with part of the grievance that landlords have been suffering under a decision of the House of Lords in the case of Nicholson v. Jackson. The House of Lords then decided that under the wording of the Acts the benefit of the compounding allowance, which is given to the landlord in recompense for his collecting the rates and handing them over to the municipality, instead of inuring to the landlord as Parliament certainly intended, and as the various committees and commissions which have considered this matter have said Parliament did intend, is passed on in full to the tenant. The Royal Commission, when considering it, turned down the suggestion of reversing the decision in Nicholson v. Jackson on the grounds that it would mean reopening the question of the rent books in about 5,000,000 different cases, going back to the period of 1914, when many of the facts would be difficult to find, and considered the amount involved would not be worth the trouble. In the new Clause we have put down, we have endeavoured to meet what is the major part of the grievance, and the part which can be ascertained. I will not go into the reasons why it does not fall so much on other but on those houses which have come into compounding either through the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, or through various cor-
poration Acts that have been passed since 1914, the full burden falls. I think in one of the decisions given in the courts it was said that what the landlords lost on the swings they gained on the roundabouts. But on the houses that have come into compounding since 1914 they have lost on both, and there is nothing from which they can get compensation.
This is really a considerable grievance, as I think hon. Members will realise from some figures that have been given to me. The amount of rates collected in a year on houses coming into compounding since 1914 amounts to more than £500,000, and the compounded allowance amounts to more than £50,000. Worse still, the landlords have had to pay 5 per cent. commission to the collectors for collecting these rates, amounting to £25,000. They have been actually worse off since coming into compounding because they have not got the allowance and they have had to pay this commission to the collectors. I realise the answer will probably be that the new Clause is illogical and will upset the Nicholson v. Jackson decision. I submit that would be a good answer if my new Clause was going to do anybody an injustice. I say it will do no single person an injustice, because every one of the tenants who is getting the benefit of the compounding allowance is not really entitled to it. It is an absolutely one-sided case. All these years tenants have been getting this benefit which Parliament never intended they should have, and by putting in this Clause it will remove a very serious injustice.

12.24 a.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid it is impossible to accept the new Clause. To use the hon. Member's words, he is trying on behalf of the landlords to get it on the swings and not on the roundabouts. It was pointed out by the Committee that if you were to put right the injustice caused by the Nicholson v. Jackson case, you would have to deal with this large number of cases, and in the vast majority of them the tenants would gain. This proposal only deals with the case where the landlords would gain. As the Committee recommended that the matter should not be dealt with because of the difficulties of dealing with
it altogether, it is not right to deal with it in this one-sided manner.

Sir S. ROBERTS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir D. HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 15.—(Evidence of husband or wife of accused person.)

1.55 a.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I beg to move, in page 11, line 35, to leave out from the second word "to" to the end of line 36, and to insert instead thereof the words "those offences."
The object of this Amendment is to put right an error in drafting which has only been discovered since the Bill reached this House. As the Clause is at present drafted, it does not re-enact the existing law. The Amendment is necessary in order to preserve the present position and to make it clear that the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, aplies to proceedings in respect of all offences mentioned in the First Schedule of the Bill, whether taken under existing enactments or under the common law.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

1.56 a.m.

Mr. ATKINSON: The point is not quite as simple and easily disposed of as the Under-Secretary seems to think. It may well be that the Amendment is necessary to make the Clause into a consolidating Clause, but I do not see why we should be asked to accept a consolidating Clause which consolidates the law in a way in which the law was never intended to operate. It must be open to the Committee to refuse to pass the Clause if satisfied that it is not what the Committee desires.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member thinks this Clause ought to be omitted to correct and improve the law.

Mr. ATKINSON: I say it ought to be omitted, because it is bad law. It must be open to the Committee to reject the Clause if there is good reason to reject it.

The CHAIRMAN: It is quite in order for the hon. and learned Member to vote against the Clause, but not in order to argue that the Clause should not be passed in order to make some alteration, whether good or bad, in the existing law.

Mr. ATKINSON: I quite recognise that one has only the right to object to the Clause in toto. I am objecting to the Clause in toto.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member, I think, does not follow me. Although he can vote against the Clause, he cannot make a speech against the Clause if that speech is arguing, or intended to argue, in favour of making an alteration of the law as it exists at this moment.

Mr. ATKINSON: I accept your Ruling, but I want to understand it. Is it ruled that one is not entitled to say that the effect of the Clause is such that it ought not to be incorporated in the Bill?

The CHAIRMAN: That is my Ruling if omitting the Clause would alter the law.

Mr. THORP: As I understand it, the Select Committee has certified this as being a consolidating Act which effects no alteration in the law at all. If that be the case, how is it that this Amendmen is being moved?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is too late. The Amendment has been dealt with. As a matter of courtesy, I made an explanation. I said that the Amendment was permitted because it was found that there was an error in the drafting and that the law had not been correctly reproduced. The Select Committee had not seen the error.

Mr. THORP: My hon. and learned Friend was on his feet at the time the Question was put.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is wrong. I had put the Question, "That the Clause, as amended,
stand part of the Bill." His hon. Friend was talking on that, and not on the Amendment.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Offences against children, and young persons, with respect to which, special provisions of this Act will apply.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."

The CHAIRMAN: I have a manuscript Amendment handed in by the hon. and learned Member for Altringham (Mr. Atkinson), but I think I am right, if I do not misunderstand it, that this Amendment would make an alteration in the law as it at present stands. If that be the case, the Amendment is out of order.

Mr. ATKINSON: It is not an alteration of the law as it was intended to be.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it is impossible for us to decide what was intended different from what was done. There may be differences of opinion as to what was the intention of the legislators of the time.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEARER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes after Two o'Clock.

GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.

Reported with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

FAIRS BILL,

"to regularise and legalise the giving of prizes, other than money prizes, at fun fairs," presented by Mr. Groves; supported by Mr. Denville, Mr. Holford Knight, Mr. John Jones, Mr. Grundy, Mr. George Hirst, and Mr. Neil Maclean; to be read a Second time upon
Friday, 28th April, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Indian Constitutional Reform,—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of 16 Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons, with power to call into consultation representatives of the Indian States and of British India, to consider the future government of India and, in particular, to examine and report upon the proposals in Command Paper 4268, pursuant to the Commons
Message of this day, and they propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room A, To-morrow, at Three o'clock.

That they have agreed to,—

Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to repeal the London Overhead Wires Act, 1891, and to make other provision for the control and regulation of overground wires and other apparatus in the administrative county of London." [London Overground Wires, &c., Bill [Lords].]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of Oxford with regard to their electricity undertaking; to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, and local government of the city of Oxford; and for other purposes." [Oxford Corporation Bill [Lords].]

So much of the Lords Message as relates to Indian Constitutional Reform considered.

Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Captain Margesson.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

LONDON OVERGROUND WIRES, &c., BILL [Lords].

OXFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PRIVILEGES.

Report from the Committee of Privileges brought up, and read, as follows:—

1. The Committee have considered the speeches of Alderman Bowles and Alderman Huntsman reported in the Nottingham Journal newspaper and the Nottingham Guardian newspaper, respectively, of Monday, 3rd April, 1933. They are of opinion that the speeches complained of contain primâ facie reflections upon the fairness and impartiality of Members serving
2376
upon a Parliamentary Committee, and as such constitute a breach of the Privileges of the House.
2. Alderman Bowles and Alderman Huntsman were summoned to attend before the Committee on Tuesday, 11th April and attended accordingly.
3. Alderman Bowles disclaimed any intention of suggesting that the Private Bill Committee of the House of Commons upon the Nottingham Corporation Bill of last Session was not impartial. He regretted the use of the words complained of and unreservedly withdrew them. Alderman Huntsman also disclaimed any intention of making any imputation upon the Members of the Private Bill Committee and profoundly regretted that any words of his should have been so interpreted.
In view of these unconditional withdrawals and expressions of regret the Committee recommend that the House do not take any further action in the matter.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.